Decided on November 15,2017

Shivanand Shivamurthy Harapanahalli Appellant
Sumati Sunil Bhandari Respondents


C.V. Bhadang, J. - (1.) On 07/08/2017, a notice for final disposal was issued to both the respondents. The respondent no.1 has appeared. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the second respondent. I have heard Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Teles, the learned Counsel for the first respondent and the petition is being disposed of finally.
(2.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 18/03/2017 and the order dated 29/06/2017, passed in Civil Suit No.17/2017/A by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mapusa. By the impugned order dated 18/03/2017, an application for production of documents filed by the respondent no.1 has been allowed. By the subsequent order dated 29/06/2017, the application filed by the respondent no.1 for amendment of the Written Statement, has been allowed.
(3.) It is submitted by Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application for amendment has been allowed simply based on the fact that the production of the documents is allowed. In the submission of Shri Mulgaonkar, such a course cannot be countenanced. It is submitted that there are no averments in the application for amendment as to why proposed amendment could not be sought prior to the commencement of the trial as is required by proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C. It is submitted that the evidence of the petitioner is already concluded and as such amendment and the production of the document shall cause prejudice. It is submitted that the only contention raised in the written statement is that Agreement of Sale is obtained under duress and coercion and no other defence has been raised.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.