RAMNIWAS DAS Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 13.1.2015, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is rejected by the Court below.

(2.) THE singular question involved in this matter is whether strict principles of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and its proviso are applicable in a proceeding under Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974. Certain provisions of CPC are borrowed by the said Adhiniyam. Section 8 by which the provisions of CPC are borrowed reads as under: -

(3.) SIMILAR question came up before this Court in (Army Public School, Morar Vs. Ramdhan Sharma, 2014 3 JabLJ 156). In the said case, the amendment was disallowed by placing reliance on proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the Lower Court in a proceeding arising out of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the parties while arguing this matter fairly admitted that as per Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, certain provisions of CPC are borrowed. Section 8 of said Adhiniyam is analogous to Section 11(3) of the ID Act. In view of this admitted position, the judgment of Army Public School will apply to the present case with full force. Accordingly, the order of the Court below in rejecting the amendment application for the singular reason i.e., proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be permitted to stand.