PANI DEVI Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR MANSINGHKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-tenant has laid this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 1st of March 2013 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, whereby the application of the petitioner-tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 was rejected.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the proposed amendment was necessary for adjudication of the lis involved in the matter and therefore by declining the prayer of the petitioner-tenant, the learned Tribunal has committed grave and serious error of law which is apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that in the matters of amendment, the Courts are required to adopt a very lenient and pragmatic approach, and for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings normally prayer for amendment cannot be refused. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered in case of Murlidhar Vs. Nand Kishore & Anr. [RLW 2006 (2) Raj. 1687].

(3.) THE Apex Court in case of Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Shrivastava (AIR 2001 SC 803) in the matter of amendment in respect of subsequent developments has made following observations in Para 13 :