NAND LAL Vs. MANDIR SHRI GOVERDHAN VAISHNAV PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Upon perusal of the record and after consideration of the arguments advanced by both the sides, it is noted that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a civil suit of eviction against the petitioner-defendant, claiming him to be a tenant on 1/6/2004. After framing of the issues, the Trial Court eventually decided the suit on 20/12/2016 and issued the decree against the petitionerdefendant. Upon appeal, the appellate court, vide order dtd. 16/2/2017, remanded the matter back with direction to rehear the case within a period of one month and the matter was listed for final hearing at that stage. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the reply of the original Civil Suit. The application of the petitioner-defendant came to be dismissed by way of impugned order dtd. 20/5/2017.

(3.) The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is against the true spirit of Order 6 Rule 17, as the trust in question was unregistered. The petitioner-defendant had procured the electricity connection document only after filing the reply to the suit and as soon as the new fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant, the application for amendment of reply was filed. Learned counsel contends that the Trial Court had rejected the application mechanically, without application of mind and the application ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice.