KAMLA BAI Vs. PREETI RAZIADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order dated 1.10.2008, in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2006, by which petitioner's application under Order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. was dismissed. The application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff/respondent had closed her evidence and the petitioner/defendant had also examined her 3 witnesses. As the trial had commenced, petitioner/defendant cannot be allowed to amend the pleadings and the application was rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner assailed the order on the ground that during pendency of the suit on 28.8.2008, the plaintiff along with other co- owners let out the adjacent shop to M/s Reliance Fresh Limited by a registered lease-deed dated 8.5.2008, which was registered on 27.8.2008. The application seeking amendment was immediately filed on 15.9.2008. The petitioner herein moved an application with due diligence. The proposed amendment was based on subsequent event occurred after commencement of the trial, but the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for plaintiff/respondent supported the order and submitted that in fact the plaintiff/respondent is not owner of the property which is subject matter of lease dated 8.5.2008. In this regard, a copy of the registered partition-deed dated 13.9.1991 is referred. It is stated that the premises let out to M/s Reliance Fresh Limited has not fallen into share of plaintiff Smt.Preeti Raizada. The aforesaid partition-deed has already come on record and the petitioner herein has cross-examined the plaintiff at length in this regard. The trial Court after considering the fact that plaintiff has denied that she had leased out her premises by the aforesaid lease in favour of M/s Reliance Fresh Limited, has rightly rejected the application. Respondent has also placed reliance to the Apex Court's judgments in Ajendraprasadji N.Pande Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. (2006) 12 SCC 1=2007 AIR SCW 513 and VidyaBai Vs. Padamalatha (2009) 2 SCC409=2009(1) MPWN 69 (SC) and submitted that in view of the settled law by the Apex Court that no amendment can be allowed after commencement of the trial, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application.