JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. PRITHVIRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants ­ lessees have challenged the impugned orders dtd.6.4.2013 of the learned trial Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Suratgarh, Dist. Sri Ganganagar in the eviction suits filed by the respondents ­ plaintiffs ­ Prithvi Raj and anr. on the basis of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act on 9.4.2005 terminating the lease.

(2.) THE learned trial Court by the impugned orders dtd.6.4.2013 has rejected the application for amendment of the written statement as well as the application for taking the notice dtd.22.8.2006 on record holding that the said eviction suit was at the final stage of arguments and evidence of both the parties had been concluded and at this stage, seeking amendment of the written statement on the ground that the plaintiffs had served another notice on the defendants ­ lessees on 22.8.2006 after the written statement had been filed by the defendants ­ petitioners in the said suit on 2.1.2006, therefore, the first notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property act dtd.9.4.2005 stood waived was not required to be taken on record.

(3.) IN the case of Pankaja V/s Yelappa reported in 2004 DNJ(SC) 826, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even in case of substantial delay, to minimize the litigation, amendment should be allowed at any stage.