NIRMALA KISPOTTA Vs. NANKI TIGGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of present writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order and direction for setting aside the order dated 12.08.2009 passed by Additional Munsif-I, Ranchi in Eviction Suit No. 36 of 2006, whereby the amendment petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff under order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate that the suit was filed under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to (the Act) for eviction and the nature of amendment is in respect of the right, title and interest in the property in question and therefore, the said amendment cannot be allowed in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Tiwari Vs. Basudeo Prasad & Anr., 2002 1 JCR 1]. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the entire nature of the suit is likely to be changed and, therefore, the amendment, as sought for by the original plaintiff, should not be allowed. It is further submitted that court below has failed to appreciate this crucial point involve in the matter and allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the order passed by the Court below, submitted that the court below has not committed any error by passing the said order and in support of the contention, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. K.K. Modi & ors., 2006 4 SCC 385. Learned counsel for the respondent has mainly referred paragraphs 14 to 19 of the said judgment.