MEGH SINGH Vs. RAKSHPAL SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are at logger heads on the validity of order dated 21.2.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is disallowed by the Court below.

(2.) Shri Harish Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a suit was decreed by the trial court by judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure P- 5). The present petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as Case No. 30/10 (Civil Appeal). The appellate court by judgment dated 22.6.2011 set aside the judgment and decree and remitted the matter back with certain directions. Thereafter, petitioner filed an amendment application (Annexure P-7) dated 14.10.2011. The plaintiff opposed the said application. The court below rejected the said application by erroneously considering the merits of the application. He submits that merits of amendment application cannot be considered for the purpose of deciding whether amendment application is to be allowed. Reliance is placed on the judgments (Usha Devi V. Rijwan Ahmad and others, 2008 3 MPLJ 460) and (Baldev Singh and others V.Manohar Singh and another, 2006 6 SCC 498). In addition it is contended that para-meters to consider the amendment in plaint and in written statement are different. The amendment in written statement needs to be dealt with leniently.

(3.) Prayer is opposed by Shri J.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff. He submits that the appellate court remitted the matter with limited directions. The subject matter before the appellate court was not related to Survey No. 480. It is confined to survey No. 467 and