KESHAVCHAND GIDWANI Vs. KRISHNA SHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD at length on admission. Learned trial Court vide impugned order allowed non applicant/plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint and also allowed application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC granting leave to produce documents which are copies of the demand notice, registered A.D., and rent receipts issued by previous landlord. This combined impugned order has been challenged in this petition under section 115, CPC. The order under challenge has been assailed on the ground that the amendment could not have been allowed as the proposed amendment does not provide statutory ground under section 12(1) (a) of the M.P.

(2.) ACCOMODATION Control Act, 1961 as the pleadings did not fulfil statutory requirements u/s 12(1)(a) of the Act, and therefore the ground was not available. It is also assailed on the ground that there has been a delay of about eight years in bringing the amendment and thirdly that it is likely to prejudice the interest of the defendant.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, explanation tendered by the plaintiff cannot be termed as after thought or mala fide but in the circumstances it appears quite genuine and bona fide. Therefore, the proposed amendment could not have been denied even on the ground of delay. Even otherwise, delay alone cannot be a ground for refusal of amendment if it was necessary for fair and proper decision in the case because the delay could be compensated in terms of cost. So is the case with filing of documents which were in the possession of the late Advocate. It is not the case of the defendant that documents are not genuine or that they have deliberately been withheld. The documents undisputedly are very relevant for proper decision of the case and therefore, learned trial Court no where erred in allowing the two petitions.