PARMINDER SINGH Vs. VARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.02.2020, whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts relevant to the present case are that an application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff-respondent and the same was allowed vide order dated 30.07.2019 and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 09.09.2019 for filing of the amended plaint. Against the said order, the defendant-petitioner had approached this Court in CR No.5433 of 2019 and vide order dated 05.09.2019, the revision petition was disposed off, at the preliminary stage by modifying the order allowing the amendment of the plaint making it subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as cost. On 09.09.2019 when the matter was fixed before the Trial Court for filing of the amended plaint, the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by this Court was handed over to the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent who made a statement that he had learnt about the order only on that date and that the plaintiff-respondent was not available in India. It was further stated by the counsel that the plaintiff-respondent was ready with the amended plaint, but the counsel for the defendant-petitioner raised an objection that the same can be taken on record only after deposit of Rs.50,000/- as cost as imposed by this Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent filed a miscellaneous application bearing CM No.20416-CII of 2019 before this Court which was dismissed. He thereafter made a statement that he was ready to make a payment of Rs.50,000/-, but the defendant-petitioner refused to accept the said amount. Thereafter, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 18 CPC on the ground that since the time fixed by the Court for filing of the amended plaint was over, hence, the plaintiff-respondent should not be permitted to file the amended plaint. Meanwhile, the plaintiff-respondent also filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and vide order dated 06.12.2019, the cost imposed by this Court was waived off. On 19.12.2019, the counsel for the defendant-petitioner had sought an adjournment on the ground that he wanted to seek the legal remedy for filing a review of the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Apex Court. Vide order dated 13.02.2020, the application under Order 6 Rule 18 CPC was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner as well as the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, who is on caveat.