B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE grievance of Shri Nanda for the petitioner in this case is that this petition is of 1992, which was admitted long back. The reply was filed by the respondents in this case way back in 1992 itself. Thereafter, the respondents cannot be permitted either to amend their reply or to file further reply.
(2.) IT is well settled law that amendment to the petition can always be granted even if it is filed at a belated stage, if it goes to the root of the matter. Such amendments have been granted in past by this Court as well as by the Apex Court in several cases, if by such amendment the nature of the matter was not changed or fresh cause of action had arisen in such cases. Mr. Nanda, for the petitioner, has objected to further reply or amendment in the reply. Such plea cannot be accepted. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel Shri Vineet Mathur for the respondents that this matter was fully heard earlier by my learned brother Hon'ble V.G. Palshikar, J. and as per his Lordship directions dated 28.1.1997 six weeks time was allowed to clarification/amendment to the reply filed earlier by the respondents.
(3.) I have considered the reply affidavit and it was conceded by learned Counsel Shri Nanda on the amendment/ further reply filed by the respondents that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to decide it.;