MINATI MALLIK Vs. BALARAM MALLIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Misc. Petition involves an order allowing an amendment at the instance of the plaintiff on 19.1.2016 available at Annexure-6.

(2.) The impugned order is challenged by Sri Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner on the premises that when an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. was filed, it was not proper for the trial court to keep that application pending and at the same time, considering an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. at the instance of the plaintiff. It is under the premises, Sri Sahu submitted that the impugned order becomes bad and should be interfered with and liable to be set aside.

(3.) Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, objecting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is no prohibition on the plaintiff to bring forward the application for amendment during pendency of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and further since the trial of the suit has not commenced, the petitioner has a scope for additional written statement and there is no harm in allowing the application for amendment. Further for the reason assigned by the trial court in the impugned order, there is also otherwise no infirmity in the impugned order.