AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.—Heard.
Both these writ petitions have been heard together for disposal.
WPC No. 1767 of 2010, In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the two orders- i.e. order dated 8.12.2009 rejecting his petition filed for rejecting plaint, on the ground that no cause of action survived; and the order dated 15.2.2010 rejecting petitioner''s petition filed under Order-2, Rule-2(3), on the ground that earlier suit was withdrawn without any leave to file fresh suit.
Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned orders on various grounds. Whereas, Mr. Mishra, appearing for the respondent, supported the impugned orders.
It appears that petitioner was discharged from service under order dated 17.11.1989/20.11.1989, and accordingly an Eviction suit No. 111 of 1991 was filed by the respondent on 31.5.1991 on the basis of the said discharge order. However, the order of discharge was recalled by the respondent on the ground of technical difficulty and petitioner was treated to be in service. Accordingly, a petition was filed by the respondent for withdrawing the suit on the grounds mentioned therein. Petitioner contested withdrawal of the said suit. After hearing the parties, by order dated 13.12.2002, the respondent was allowed to withdraw the suit.
Thereafter, the present suit for eviction being Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2003 was filed on fresh cause of action i.e. subsequent discharge order w.e.f. 17.4.1990.
The learned court below after hearing the parties and considering the respective cases in detail, has rightly passed the impugned orders.
No grounds are made out for interference with the same.
WPC No. 3511 of 2001 In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.5.2010, passed by learned trial court in the said suit, by which the prayer of the respondent for amendment of plaint has been allowed.
It is submitted that the amendment changed the entire nature and character of the suit and it was allowed after the trial commenced, and therefore the impugned order should be set aside.
On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, appearing for the respondent submitted that this amendment was necessitated as the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 1.2.2008 and thereafter he cannot be allowed to occupy the quarter, even if the order for his termination is set aside ultimately.
The learned court below has rightly allowed amendment, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
No grounds are made out for interference with all the impugned orders in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, no costs.
It appears that petitioner is delaying the disposal of eviction suit, by filing frivolous petitions. The trial court will try to dispose of the suit expeditiously and preferably within six months from the receipt/production of a copy of this order.