T.D. PADALIA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, NAINITAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
DISTRICT JUDGE, NAINITAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THE writ petition is admitted.
(2.)THIS writ petition has been preferred for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 15-4-2000 and 14-10-1999 passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively (Annexure Nos. 8 and 7 respectively). By the order dated 15-4-2000, the application for amendment of written statement/counter-claim under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. (Paper No. 265-A) filed by the defendant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 250/- and the objection of the plaintiffs paper No. 268-C had been rejected. By the order dated 15-4-2000 the revision preferred by the petitioner-plaintiffs had been rejected by the District Judge, Nainital.
The plaintiff-petitioners filed a Civil Suit No. 84 of 1988 for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Written statement was filed in the suit, issues were framed and the suit was fixed for final hearing by the trial Court.
(3.)BY the application paper No. 265-A, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 prayed for counter-claim on the ground that on 7-9-1998, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 Bal Krishna Sanwal had entered into a compromise without the consent of co- defendants, which necessitated the amendment in the written statement to file counter-claim in the suit. The application was opposed by the plaintiff- petitioners, who filed objection contending that the application has been moved at a highly belated stage to prolong the litigation and that the application is mala fide and prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs. After hearing both the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital allowed the application for counter-claim on payment of costs of Rs. 250/- thereby permitted the defendants to amend their written statement vide order dated 14-10-1999.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.