CHANDRAMOHAN BANSAL Vs. SATISH KUMAR SIKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE matters [Writ Petitions No.2322/2011(I) and 5766/2011 (I)] are arising out of the same civil suit and are interconnected. Accordingly, with the consent of parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.03.2011, whereby their application preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC (Annexure P-4) is rejected. By filing said application, the petitioners sought amendment which was vehemently opposed by the other side by filing reply (Annexure P-5).

(2.) SHRI N.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners submits that the Court below has erred in rejecting the said application on the ground that it was not filed with due diligence. He further criticized the order of the Court below for rejecting the said application on the ground that it will change the nature of the suit and valuation for a partition suit is different.

(3.) THE impugned order shows that the trial was at the initial stage and it was posted for evidence of the plaintiff. The Court below while rejecting the amendment application has held that the petitioners can file a separate suit by withdrawing the present one on new grounds for partition also. I find force in the argument of Shri N.K. Gupta, Advocate that if fresh suit can be permitted to be filed, why the amendment cannot be allowed.