R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.
(2.) In these three revisions common questions of law and fact are involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(3.) It appears that the revisionist filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale. The defendants-respondents filed written statement after receiving notice from the trial Court. Subsequently, it is alleged that they came to know about the fact that Sri Mukesh Chopra, who filed the suit, had no right either to sign or to present the plaint. They, therefore, made application for amendment of the written statement taking the plea regarding the rights of Sri Mukesh Chopra to sign and present the plaint. The amendment application filed by the defendants-respondents was objected to and opposed by the revisionist. It was contended that under the garb of amendment the defendants-respondents wanted to oust the jurisdiction of the Court and the amendment legally could not be allowed as the same was not necessary for just and correct disposal of the controversy involved in the suit. The Court below after hearing the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the amendment sought by the defendants-respondents was necessary for resolving the controversy involved in the suit. The Court below, therefore, by its judgment and order dated 28.10.2000 allowed the amendment. Hence this revision.;