GUNA NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT Vs. PRADIP GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant/petitioner, against whom a suit for eviction has been filed, being aggrieved by order dated 11.05.2017, by which two applications filed successively by the defendant seeking amendment in the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. have been decided by the trial court.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that consequent to the amendment made by the plaintiff in the suit consequential amendment necessiated filing of such applications one contained in Annexure P-5 and another contained in Annexure P-4. He submits that since the amendment sought was consequential, therefore, the trial court erred in disallowing such applications.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that trial court has categorically mentioned that the applications filed as Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-5 were not consequential amendment but were filed to delay proceedings of eviction, inasmuch as the defendant had already carried out consequential amendment in the written statement in terms of the amendment made by the plaintiff in compliance of the order dated 24.06.2016.