HARIRAM SONEJA Vs. NISHANT SHAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 18.10.2011 and 23.11.2011 whereby his applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment were rejected by the Court below. The petitioner, a tenant, preferred an application for amendment, Annexure P-5, which was rejected by the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed the actual date when the Gems Hair Saloon was given on rent nor it is disclosed by mentioning the date about the alleged subsequent event. Another reason assigned by the Court below is that against the counter claim of the present respondent, the present petitioner has filed his reply (Annexure P-4A), wherein he has already taken the same pleadings in extenso, and therefore, such amendment is not at all required.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment application itself shows that the aforesaid event of giving Gems Hair Saloon on rent had taken place during the pendency of the suit before the trial Court and even if no specific date is given, the Court below ought to have allowed the amendment application.

(3.) Per Contra, Shri R.V. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submits that tenant is making efforts to delay the proceedings and once his stand is clear in the reply to the counter claim, wherein he has already made such allegations / averments, no prejudice is caused to him if his amendment application is disallowed.