SATPAL GOEL Vs. SURINCHALA HANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 6.2.2015 (Annexure P -1) whereby application moved by the petitioner under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) for permission to amend the written statement, was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the suit, petitioner came to know that he had been defrauded by the respondent by creating false liability qua the joint property by obtaining C.C. limit loan from Punjab National Bank and the respondent had also got retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and installed a petrol pump in the joint land. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the amendment in the written statement sought by the petitioner, was very necessary. In support of her arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Usha Balashaheb Swami and others versus Kiran Appaso Swami and others, : 2007(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 830, wherein it was held as under: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on 'Baldev Singh and others versus Manohar Singh and another, 2006(3) R.C.R (Civil) 844, wherein it was held as under: -