RAJINDER AND ORS. Vs. GOKAL CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMP No. 2973 of 2015.

(2.) THE respondents were writ petitioners and have preferred this application for amendment of the prayer clause in the writ petition by claiming the following additional relief:

(3.) THE appellants, who are the writ respondents have filed their reply wherein preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that the applicant cannot be permitted to fill in the lacunae of his case. The application should be bonafide one and should not cause injustice to the other party. The same should be necessary for determining the real question in controversy and since the proposed amendment does not qualify any of the aforesaid conditions, therefore, the same should be dismissed. It is further contended that the application is misconceived as the amendment is now sought at the LPA stage and ought to have been moved before the learned writ court.