LALPATI AND OTHERS Vs. RAMNIVAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed this petition impugning the order dated 5.11.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 22-A/2010.

(2.) This is an admitted fact between the parties that the suit is at initial stage and issues are yet to be framed. At this stage, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. which was allowed by the Court below. Thereafter, the petitioner defendant No.1 filed an application (Annexure P-3) under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. This application was partly allowed by the Court below except proposed paragraph 23 which was disallowed. The singular reason assigned for disallowing that paragraph is that the petitioner/defendant No.1 was only required to make a consequential amendment and, therefore, the amendment application filed by the petitioner to the extent it travelled beyond the scope of consequential amendment has to be disallowed. This order of rejection dated 5.11.2012 is called in question in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his application was an independent application which was required to be seen on its own merits and it is not necessary to confine the application to the extent indicated in the earlier order.