MANGLA KAROLIYA Vs. ISHRAT ALI KHAN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition has been preferred on 11.1.2017 against the order dated 9.12.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.17285/2016.

(2.) The facts relevant to the present petition are as under:-

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the Court allowed the writ petition on 9.12.2016 upon the ground that the allegations of fraud and manipulation are already pleaded in the plaint, therefore, further amendment was not necessary in the opinion of Court and the trial court committed illegality while exercising the jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. As per petitioner, the aforesaid observation is not correct. No any pleading was in existence. Looking to the nature of the case, the lower Court rightly allowed the amendment application but due to some mistake, Writ Court allowed the writ petition. He draws the attention of this Court towards the original pleadings and also towards Para nos. 24- v and Para [1]. It is also submitted that the amendment may also be allowed for the purpose to elaborate the pleadings. In this regard, he placed the reliance upon the case Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia, 2018 2 SCC 87. He also argued that the agreement in favour of defendant nos.9 and 10 was a forged document and for proving the case, the petitioner also called the records from other offices. In this regard, he draws the attention of the Court towards the order dated 5.4.2019 passed by Co-ordinate Bench in M.P.No.309/2017.