ANIL Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 24.4.2000 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Mandsaur in Regular Civil Suit No. 85 A of 1995 whereby rejected the amendment application on cost of Rs.100/ and has closed the right to lead evidence in defence.

(2.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/defendant is that on 24.4.2000 the case was listed for the evidence of the defendant but he filed an application for amendment in the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code pleading therein that the Non applicant plaintiff has acquired an alternative accommodation for his business purposes adjoining to the suit shop, therefore, his need has come to an end. This application was opposed and the trial Court has illegally rejected this application with cost of Rs.100/ on the ground that these facts were in the knowledge of the defendant and they are not based on any subsequent event and the application has not been filed bonafidely. the defendant is trying to delay the proceedings and has also closed the right of the defendant to lead evidence. The applicant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order under Revision.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , I am of the view that the approach of the trial Court in rejecting the application was not justified. I have also perused the writ ten statement which is on record and no where this fact of availability of new alternative accommodation has been pleaded in the written statement. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the trial Court has not properly considered the amendment application of the defendant and has wrongly rejected the same.