VED PRAKASH JINDAL Vs. DEBASIS CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, defendant in Title (Eviction) Suit No.43 of 2009, is aggrieved of order dated 02.08.2017 by which his application for amendment in the written statement has been rejected.

(2.) Title (Eviction) Suit No.43 of 2009 was instituted by Debasis Chandra for a decree for eviction 0f the defendant from Schedule-A property and for a decree for Rs. 10,800.00 as arrears of rent. In the suit the plaintiff has asserted himself as owner of the shop premises which the defendant was using as godown. The plaintiff has further asserted that he has issued rent receipts to the tenant and the defendant in the written statement has admitted tenancy in respect of Schedule-A property under the plaintiff. The defendant has pleaded that during pendency of this suit when summons were issued to him in Title (Partition) Suit No.327 of 2015 in which he has been arrayed as defendant no.13, he came to know that plaintiff in the eviction suit is not the exclusive owner of the Schedule-A property.

(3.) Contending that in View of the new facts which have come to the notice of the defendant amendment in the written statement became necessary, Mr. J.K. Pasari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Judge has erroneously dismissed the amendment application on the ground of delay and that the defendant has admitted that he is a tenant under the plaintiff. Referring to the judgment in "M/s. Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (Pvt) Ltd. " reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to elaborate the defence taken by the petitioner amendment in the written statement was necessary.