BHRUGURAM DASH Vs. ANANDA MOHAN DUTTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter involves challenge to the order allowing an application for amendment at the instance of the defendant by the trial court.

(2.) Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the pleadings already borne in the written statement at paragraph no.7(a) and the amendment sought for as appearing at page 19 of the brief, contended that for the amendment sought to be brought in, not only there is no attempt taking away of any admission but the same will rather facilitation effective adjudication of the suit. It is under the circumstance and taking to the observation made in the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been no proper consideration of the application for amendment at the instance of the defendant and Sri Samal, therefore, contends, rejection of the amendment application is not sustainable in the eye of law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party nos.1, 3, 4 & 5, on the other hand, objecting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court again to the averments made in the paragraph no.7(a) of the written statement and the amendment sought for, submitted that for the new pleadings brought by way of amendment, there has been an attempt for taking away the admission already there. Referring to two decisions (1) in the case of Jaspal Kaur Cheema & anr. versus M/s. Industrial Trade Links & Ors., 2017 AIR(SC) 3995 and (2) in the case of State of Bihar and ors. versus Modern Tent House & Anr., 2017 AIR(SC) 4966 learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 submitted that for the support of the decisions to the case of the plaintiff and for the observations made in the impugned order, there appears, there is no infirmity in the impugned order leaving no scope for this Court to interfere in the same.