MAHESH AGARWAL Vs. UMESH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Order, dtd. 6/7/2023, passed by the Court of the Learned Principal District Judge, at Gangtok, Sikkim, in Title Appeal No.03 of 2021, Umesh Agarwal vs. Mahesh Agarwal and Another by which the amendment sought by the Appellant (Respondent No.1 herein), at the appellate stage, was permitted by the said Court, being the First Appellate Court.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel contended that the order caused severe prejudice to the Petitioner and to the cause of justice. The attention of this Court was drawn to Paragraph 18 of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, the 'CPC'), filed by the Respondent No.1, as the Appellant, before the Court of Learned District Judge, East Sikkim, at Gangtok. That, as per Paragraph 18 of the said application the following amendments were proposed by the Respondent No.1;

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1 concedes that the amendments sought and extracted hereinabove do not clearly lay down the intent of the Respondent No.1, which in fact was not to claim the properties of the Petitioner herein but to make him repay his share of the Rs.20.50 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs and fifty thousand) only, that the Respondent No.1 had deposited with the Respondent No.2 herein (SIDICO), in order to redeem the properties that were put forth as collateral when loan was taken from the Respondent No.2 by the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1 and their late father for business purposes.