RAMDAS JHA Vs. LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the order, Annexure P -1, dated 11.07.2011, whereby his application preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is rejected by the court below. Criticizing the order, Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that an order passed in Case No. 81 -A/2004 (appeal) and an order passed by the High Court in Case No. 4156/2010 was filed along with an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of CPC. This application was allowed by the impugned order. However, yet another application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was filed, whereby the same documents were mentioned in the proposed amendment but the said application was rejected. He submits that the court below has erred in disallowing the application for amendment.

(2.) SHRI Saxena, on the contrary, submits that once the judgments of the courts are already taken on record, it will be open for the petitioner to rely on those judgments before the court below and if amendment application is disallowed, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner.

(3.) SHRI Gupta submits that petitioner may be directed to rely on those judgments, which were filed along with application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of CPC and court below may be directed to deal with those judgments at appropriate stage. In view of aforesaid stand of the parties, I deem it proper to dispose of this petition with the following directions: -