SIDDHARAM PARSHURAM TAKALE Vs. ADVESHWAR GRURUBASYYA HIREMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of the learned Counsel for parties, taken on board for final hearing.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for parties. This Petition preferred by Defendants under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 8th March 2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Kolhapur below Exh.24 in Civil Appeal No. 235 of 2015 rejecting the Defendants' Application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for carrying out an amendment in the Written Statement at Appellate stage.

(3.) It is the case of the Defendants that the Appellate Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the Defendants failed to make out any case for carrying out amendment in the Written Statement. He submits that the Defendants filed the Written Statement on 19th March 201 He submits that at the time of filing the Written Statement, it remained on the part of Defendants to provide all the information to his Advocate. Hence, the Defendants preferred Application below Exh.24 under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for carrying out amendment. He submits that the amendment seeks by the Defendants are procedural in nature. It is not going to affect the interest of the Respondent/Plaintiff. He submits that the Appellate Court erred in coming to the conclusion that in view of proviso to the Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Defendants are not entitled to carry out amendment in the Written Statement. He submits that if the impugned order is not set aside irreparable loss and injury will cause to the Defendants. He submits that in the interest of justice, this Honourable Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court and allow the Applicant to carry out the amendment in the Written Statement.