Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) -Heard Smt. Rama Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Nand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
(2.) The respondent no. 2 filed SCC Suit No. 13 of 1996 in the Court of Small Cause, Jhansi which was finally heard on 05.01.2000 and 07.01.2000 was fixed for delivery of judgment. Just a day earlier, on 06.01.2000, the respondent no. 2 moved an application seeking amendment in the plaint stating that boundary of disputed property has not been mentioned in the plaint and, therefore, he may be permitted to amend the plaint by mentioning boundary.
(3.) It is not the case of the parties that disputed property was not identifiable and there was any dispute regarding identity of suit property. The Trial Court has not non-suited the respondent no. 2 on the ground that he had failed to mention boundary of suit property in the plaint. On the contrary, the Trial Court has decided the suit on merits and rejected application for amendment being wholly unwarranted and a dilatory tactics.;