URMILA DEVI Vs. SUMAN SAMANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2013 and 12.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division) III, Giridih, in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2004 whereby, the petition dated 09.05.2013 under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P. C and under Section 151 of the C.P.C filed by the petitioner/defendant have been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that, initially the Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2003 was filed by Sapan Samanta, the brother of the respondent on 25.08.2003 which was subsequently re-numbered as Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2004. The defendant, husband of the present petitioner filed written statement on 11.03.2004 and issues were framed on 27.07.2007. The evidence led by the plaintiff was concluded on 14.08.2014 and the matter is awaiting evidence of the defendant. In the meantime, the sole respondent preferred an application dated 04.06.2004 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.02.2007. The second application under Order 1 Rule 10 was filed by the respondent/present plaintiff on 24.05.2010 which has been allowed vide order dated 01.08.2012. Against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 7259 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 17.04.2013 granting liberty to both the parties to file amendment application, if necessary. Subsequently, the present plaintiff filed an amendment application which has been allowed by the Trial Court however, the application dated 09.05.2013 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2013. The petitioner/defendant preferred an application seeking recall of order dated 08.08.2013 however, the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2013.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment sought by the petitioner/defendant was necessitated due to subsequent development. After the death of the original plaintiff, the present plaintiff sought his impleadment in the pending suit. It is further submitted that the defendant has taken a stand that the husband of the defendant made some payment to the husband of the present plaintiff and he has been sending money through money-order which was declined by the present plaintiff. Since, these developments are subsequent to filing of the Eviction Suit, these facts were necessary for the defendant to incorporate in the written statement. Under the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the restriction contained in Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 is not attracted in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : AIR 2000 SC 614 to fortify his contention that if an amendment has been sought promptly and allowed, if does not cause injustice to other parties, such prayer seeking amendment should be allowed.