In so far as the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the said Code filed by the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that the original prayer is for mandatory injunction for removal of the suit structure. The respondents had filed a detailed written statement opposing the said relief. The learned trial Judge had accordingly framed the issues considering the pleadings filed by both the parties. The parties thereafter led oral evidence. The witness examined by both the parties were extensively cross-examined by the opponents. It is not in dispute that by the said application for seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the said Code, the petitioner had prayed for inclusion of prayer for possession of the said property.
13. A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge clearly indicates that the learned trial Judge has after considering the record and after considering several judgments relied upon by both the parties has rejected the said application for amendment on the ground that there was no due diligence either pleaded or proved by the petitioner in the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the said Code for seeking amendment to the plaint. The said application has been also rejected on the ground that there would be a change of cause of action. The matter has already been placed for final argument. In my view, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for seeking amendment at the stage of final argument and that also the amendment by which the original cause of action would be changed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition No. 8717 of 2018
Decided On: 10.09.2018
Archana Ashok Amburle Vs. Arpana Shankar Dudham and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
No comments:
Post a Comment