R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. By means of this writ petition the petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 23.10.2000 passed by the court below rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioners.
(2.) IT is stated that against the judgment and order dated 22.5.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority dismissing the release application an appeal was filed by the respondent No. 2/landlord. During the pendency of the said appeal the petitioners filed application for amendment of the written statement. The application was opposed by the contesting respondent and the same was ultimately dismissed by order dated 23.10.2000. Hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier two applications to amend the written statement were allowed. In the meanwhile the respondents/landlord transferred another shop on 23.2.2000 hence another application for amending the pleadings was filed which was liable to be allowed. The Court below, according to him, acted illegally in dismissing the said application. The judgment and order passed by the court below was, therefore, liable to be quashed.
(3.) I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly two applications filed earlier to amend the written statement were already allowed by the court below. By means of third amendment application the petitioner wanted to bring on record the subsequent events. The court below has observed that the application was filed with a view to delay the disposal of appeal, which was pending since the year 1992.;