MUKTESHWARI Vs. AAMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 11.01.2011 passed by II Civil Judge, Class-1, Mandla in Civil Suit No.41-A/2010 whereby application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and another application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC are rejected.

(2.) ON bare perusal of the impugned order it is gathered that the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected solely on the ground of delay. To me, if the application of amendment is otherwise necessary and application has not been rejected on merits but only on the ground of delay, the defendant/respondent can be compensated by cost.

(3.) SO far as another application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is concerned, on bare perusal of the impugned order it is gathered that because the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected, this application has also been rejected. Since this Court has already allowed the application of plaintiff to amend the plaint eventually the impugned order pertaining to rejection of application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is also set aside with a direction to the Trial Court to re-decide this application.