ARVIND RAMDAS SHAH Vs. RAMDAS TIKAMDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the appellate stage the Petitioner wanted to amend the written statement by adding para 9A and 17A to it. Para 9A is nothing but mainly an amplification of Para 9 of the written statement. By the said amendment the Petitioner wanted to point out how the entire property was the joint family property and he is entitled to retain 2 rooms in his possession as co-owner/co-parcener and the original plaintiff Ramdas had no right to bequeath the same to Sou. Malti under the Will as far as his share in the joint family property was concerned. The Petitioner mentioned various details in respect of his right as co-owner. By adding para 17A the Petitioner wanted to contend that if he is treated as lawful sub-tenant or licensee as alleged by plaintiff, in that event as he was in possession on 1-2-1973, he was entitled to get protection of the Bombay Rent Act and retain the possession of 2 rooms.

(2.) THE said application for amendment came to be rejected by the 4th Additional District Judge, Pune holding that amendment in para 9A is not necessary and para 17A introduces a new case.

(3.) IN view of this, the impugned order dated 5-1-1989 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Pune below Exh.12 in Regular Civil Appeal No.1366/1986 is set aside. The Petitioner to carry out amendment within 6 weeks. Hearing of Civil Appeal No.1366 of 1986 pending in the District Court, Pune is expedited and to be disposed of as early as possible. The Petitioner to pay the costs of Respondents quantified at Rs.1500/-. Cost to be deposited in the trial Court within 6 weeks.