- (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the or­der dated 03.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Sultanpur in original suit No. 63 of 2007 Ghanshyam Das v. Naseem.
(2.) HEARD Shri. M.E. Khan, learned coun­sel for the revisionists. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the respondent had filed a suit (suit No. 63 of 2007) on 16.02.2007 for permanent in­junction and the same is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Sultanpur. In the said suit, the present revi­sionist implcaded as respondent, filed a writ­ten statement. Thereafter, on behalf of the revisionist/respondent, an application for amendment was moved (copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition) to which plaintiff filed their objection. After hearing the parties on application under Or­der VI Rule 17 moved by the respondent for amendment, the same was rejected by order dated 03.03.2010. Hence the present writ pe­tition.
(3.) SHRI M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist while assailing the order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the court below in brief has submitted that revisionist by mistake en­gaged a criminal lawyer who filed a written statement on his behalf, although the revision­ist gave him all the necessary information in regard to change of trade mark which was to be incorporated and pleaded in the written statement but the same was not done by his counsel and written statement was drafted and filed in the court below. Thereafter, the said counsel avoided to conduct the case on be­half of the revisionist, as a result of which, revisionist engaged another counsel and on his advise, an application moved for amend­ment in order to incorporate certain facts as mentioned therein. The same was rejected by the court below on the ground that the revi­sionist was aware of the amendment sought prior to the filing of the written statement.;