BASAVARAJ ANNAPPA UPASE Vs. AMIT SIDRAMAPPA ABDULPURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. Heard the learned counsels for both the sides.

(2.) What is challenged in the petition is the order dated 13.1.1997 passed below Exh.30 in Regular Civil Suit No.503 by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Solapur. By that order an Application for amendment in the written statement has been rejected. The only ground that is given by the learned Judge is that as the Application for amendment of the written statement has already been rejected, the second Application is not tenable. An application for amendment of a written statement and an order of rejecting the application for amending the written statement is an interlocutory order and therefore, really speaking it will not bar filing of the second application, specially when the first application was rejected on the ground that the reasons for submitting the application for amendment are not disclosed in the application and when in the second application, admittedly, those reasons have been disclosed. In my opinion, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application for amendment, specially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court that permission to amend a written statement is to be granted liberally, subject to the condition that an irreparable damage is not caused to the rights of the plaintiff, which are already accrued to him. I see no such things in the present case. In this view of the matter, therefore, the Civil Revision Application No.406/97 succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.