AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.06.2005 passed by the learned Court below whereby the petitioner''s petition for amendment has been partly allowed and partly rejected.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law as the Court below has refused the prayer for incorporation of certain facts which are necessary for the effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties.
Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that the Court below has acted judiciously and has exercised its jurisdiction properly in partly refusing the petitioner''s prayer for incorporating the statements which are nothing but interpretation of certain provisions of law and interpretation of the terms of the documents. Learned Counsel submitted that the said interpretation and provisions of law are not the relevant facts to be incorporated in a pleading. Learned Court below, after considering the petitioner''s application and the rejoinder as well as the provisions of law has rightly allowed part of the amendment prayed which are material facts for the purpose of the suit.
After going through the record and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the Court below has allowed the amendment which were relevant for the purpose of the suit and has refused to incorporate the statements which were mere interpretation of law or interpretation of the terms of the agreement.
I find no patent error or illegality in the order of the Court below warranting any intervention in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There being no merit, this writ application is dismissed.