SUBHASH SHARMA Vs. RAJENDRA @ PAPPU DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 04.04.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 12A/2012 by the Civil Judge Class II, Gohad, District Bhind. By this order the application preferred by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has been rejected by the Court below.

(2.) PETITIONERS / plaintiffs preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure P/4) seeking amendment. The defendant filed his reply Annexure P/5. The amendment application was rejected on the ground that in support of application for amendment the petitioners haves not produced any evidence nor filed any photograph to show that during the pendency of the suit any additional construction has been made by the defendant. On the basis of aforesaid reason the trial Court opined that there is no material to show that construction was made subsequently and application is based on subsequent event.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri H.K.Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Abhinav Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the order passed by the Court below. It is contended by them that petitioners have completely failed to prove the averments of the amendment application and the Court below has not committed any error in holding that the petitioners did not produce any material to show that the alleged reconstruction was made by the defendant during the pendency of the suit.