HEMANT KUMAR @ HOTHCHANDRA Vs. MEHANT JAI NARAYAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugning the order dated 27.01.2014, this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent Annexure P/3. Petitioner / defendant filed his written statement. During the pendency of the suit the defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Annexure P/7. Admittedly, this amendment was allowed by the Court below. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C (Annexure P/8). After receiving reply of the other side, this application is rejected by the impugned order dated 21.01.2014.

(2.) Criticizing this order, Shri Santosh Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that pursuant to allowing amendment application, certain new pleadings were added in the written statement. By the time Annexure P/7 was allowed, the plaintiff's evidence was over. Thus, petitioner prayed that in view of amended pleadings pursuant to Annexure P/7, he be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses and they be recalled. He submits that Court below has erred in rejecting the said application. The Court below has merely rejected the application on the ground that it is filed after five years and petitioner has right to adduce his own evidence and take assistance of aforesaid pleadings. In support of this contention, he relief on (Indore Rolling Mills and another Vs. State of M.P., 2007 2 MPLJ 64) and (Ram Vishal @ Vishali Kachhawaha Vs. Dwarka Prasad Jailwal, 2006 2 MPLJ 507)

(3.) Prayer is opposed by Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, he submits that Court below has rightly exercised its discretion and there is no infirmity which warrants inference of this Court in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. He placed reliance on (K.K. Veluswamy Vs. N. Palanisamy, 2011 11 SCC 275).