Shri Nhanu Ladu Pednekar vs Shri Madhusudan Krishnaji and Others

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.—Undisputedly, the appellant had not filed any written statement as such in reply to the summons served upon him. No doubt, appellant had sent a letter dated 29th April, 1981 addressed to the Judge at Mapusa before whom the said suit was pending. However, even the contents of the letter nowhere disclose the necessary requirements of the ingredients of the plea of tenancy so as to hold that there was any plea of tenancy as such by the appellant before the Trial Court. Considering the law in this regard as already laid down in the matter of Pandu Dhondi Yerudkar and Another Vs. Ananda Krishna Patil, , the question of framing of tenancy does not arise unless the party pleads necessary ingredients of tenancy in the pleadings. As regards the nature of the land, admittedly, the appellant himself had stated in the letter that the land was a barren land. Once it is clear that" the appellant had not filed any written statement in the suit, the question of granting any amendment as such to the written statement cannot arise. The provision of Order 6, Rule 17 deals with the amendment to pleadings which are already on record and since it is not disputed that the appellant had not filed any pleadings before the Trial Court, the question of entertaining any application for amendment as such does not arise, and, therefore, the order of the appellate Court dismissing the application cannot be said to be in any way illegal or improper.

Since the matter does not give rise to any substantial question of law, no interference is called for in this Appeal and the same is dismissed.