Sat Narain v. Mohan Lal

1. The petitioner (defendant in the trial court) has assailed the order dated 19''^ January, 2011 whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent seeking amendments in the plaint was allowed.

2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the amendments sought by tlie respondent before the learned trial court are barred by limitation and it would defeat the rights of the petitioner which have accrued to him by lapse of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has also referred to the decision Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit V[5]. Usman Habib Dhuka & Ors., 2013 (6) Scale 181.

3. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent originally filed the suit recovery of possession, damages, perpetual injunction etc. and by virtue of the application, the respondent sought amendments for redemption of the mortgaged property by mortgagor, CM(hi)No.241/2011 Page I of[2] 2013:DHC:7577 -f cancellation of lease deed dated IT^ September, 1999 and declaration that the agreement deed dated 4*^ July, 1984 is null and void.

4. The contention of the respondent before the learned trial court was that despite of all the facts and pleadings due to oversight the relief for redemption of the mortgaged property was not sought in the prayer clause nor it was added in the reliefs. Therefore, the amendments on the basis of the factual position of the matter be allowed. The statement was also made before the learned trial court that in view of the amendments, the respondent did not wish to lead further evidence and shall limit his case upto the extent and evidence already recorded. In view of the statement made by the respondent, there is no impediment in allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in view ofthe nature ofpresent case.

5. Having considered the entire gamut of the matter as well as the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial court. Even otherwise, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the facts of the case. The same does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition and pending application are accordingly dismissed.

DECEMBER 11, 2013 CM (M) No. 241/201]

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE Page 2 of[2]