KULJEET KAUR Vs. MUNISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant is aggrieved of the order dated 15.11.2014 whereby application moved by the respondentsplaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate sub para in paragraph 6 of the plaint has been allowed.

(2.) Mr. Raman Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no doubt the suit bearing No. 188 of 2004 was decided ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2009. However, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court by giving two opportunities to the defendant to cross examine the witness. The suit was at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiffs and the aforementioned application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint was filed.

(3.) He further submits that preceding to filing of the suit, no legal notice was sent hence ingredients of Section 16-C of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') were also wanting and therefore the amendment could not be permitted. In support of his contentions he has relied upon the judgment in J. Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others, 2012 167 PunLR 93 thus, prays that there is illegality and perversity in the impugned order.