SHAKUNTALA BAI Vs. CHAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed at the instance of the petitioners/defendants whose application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been rejected by the trial Court.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that a suit for eviction on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 on the grounds envisaged under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation and Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act of 1961). The suit is pending in the trial Court. In the meantime the defendants amended their written-statement and in consequence to it the plaintiff/respondent no.1 submitted an application to amend the plaint by way of consequential amendment. This application was allowed and eventually the plaintiff amended the plaint. Thereafter, an application to amend the written-statement was filed by the defendants which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.10.2012, hence this petition has been filed.

(3.) The contention of Shri Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants is that by labelling the amendment to be consequential amendment, indeed the plaintiff has pleaded three new facts as a result of which it became necessary for the defendants to amend their written-statement, therefore, the application was filed which has been illegally rejected by the learned trial Court.