GHULAM MOHIUDDIN ALIAS SAMAD Vs. AKTHAR ULTANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is stated by the Counsel representing the revision petitioners that in pursuance of the direction of this Court, the learned Counsel had served notice on the Counsel representing the parties before the trial Court. The proof of service is also filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the application praying for amendment of the written statement by introducing Para 7(a) was dismissed only on the ground of delay. The learned Counsel would submit that the suit was filed for partition and due to oversight, certain facts were not incorporated in the written statement. The learned Counsel would maintain that the proposed amendment is more clarificatory in nature, but the learned Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that it was moved at a belated stage, and the same cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on M.P. Rajasekharan Nair v. Raju, 2003 (TLS) 1103919 2003 - Tlker-0-59.

(3.) Heard the Counsel.