AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.12.2009 passed in Eviction Suit No. 5 of 2008 by the Munsif, Ghatshila allowing the prayer of the Opposite party No. 2 (plaintiff-landlord) under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment.
Mr. Das, appearing for the petitioner (defendant-tenant) submitted that under proviso of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., the plaintiff was required to plead that inspite of due diligence he could not make such prayer earlier, and therefore the court below should not have allowed the prayer for amendment.
This Eviction Suit No. 5 of 2008 was filed for eviction on the ground of personal necessity and default. Issues were framed on 6.12.2008. After one witness was examined, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to bring on record the orders passed in H.R.C. Case No. 4 of 2006 between the parties on the ground that by inadvertence they could not be brought on record.
It appears that the court has found that for proper adjudication of the case, the amendment sought, should be allowed; and that it will not prejudice the case of the other side.
In the circumstances, in my opinion, the amendment sought for has been rightly allowed keeping in view the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.
However, the petitioner will be at liberty to file additional written statement within three weeks from today. The petitioner will also be at liberty to pray for the call of P.W. 1 already examined, if so advised.
With these liberties, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.