GOVIND MATHUR, J. - (1.) TO question validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 22.3.2005, passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 104/04, i.e. said to have been filed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, this petition for writ is preferred.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that the present petitioner is a tenant in the premises owned by the respondent plaintiff, who preferred a suit for eviction and arrears of rent and damages against the petitioner defendant before Additional District Judge, Abu Road on the ground of reasonable bonafide necessity and substantial damage to the premises let out. On 17.2.2005 the petitioner defendant preferred three different applications. One under Order XI Rules 15 and 18 read with 151 Code of Civil Procedure with the statement that in the plaint a reference regarding a sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was made, however, copy of the sale deed despite demand by the defendant vide notice dated 22.9.2004, was not supplied to him and that was filed before the court on 9.2.2005. Accordingly, a direction was sought to supply copy of the sale deed concerned. Second application was filed as per provisions of Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that copy of the plaint so also affidavit filed in support thereof are required to be duly signed by the plaintiff, but such requirement was not satisfied, therefore, plaint is liable to be rejected. The third application was filed by the petitioner defendant pointing Out violation of the provisions of Order VI Rule 2(3) Code of Civil Procedure. An application was also filed by the respondent plaintiff under Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that since the written statement was not filed by the petitioner defendant within the statutory period of 30 days, therefore, his right to file the written statement be closed. No reply to the applications preferred by the petitioner defendant was filed by the respondent plaintiff, however, he filed an amended plaint making necessary corrections as per provisions of Order VI Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure Code of Civil Procedure and also supplied copies of the sale deeds to the petitioner defendant. The trial court by order impugned disposed of all the applications with the observation that no order is required to be passed on the applications preferred by the petitioner defendant in as much as the plaintiff has already filed an amended plaint while complying with the provisions of Order VI Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure and for that he was not required to take prior permission of the court. Learned trial court also observed that the petitioner defendant will be free to file a reply to the amended plaint since the same was already filed on 4.3.2005.
(3.) WHILE assailing validity of the order impugned, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the trial court should have passed specific orders on the applications preferred by the petitioner defendant under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure and also on the application preferred under Order VI Rule 2(3) Code of Civil Procedure. It is also stated that the amended plaint could have not been taken on record without specific permission of the court as per provisions of Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure.;