D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to join, left out original plaintiffs as respondents in both the petitions.
(2.) PERMISSION , as prayed for, is granted. Counsel for the respondents, waives notice on behalf of newly added respondents.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that : (i) the present petitioners in both the aforesaid petitions are the original defendants in Title (Eviction) Suit Nos. 59 as well as 61 of 2006; (ii) the respondents are the original plaintiffs, who have instituted the Title (Eviction) Suit on the ground of personal necessity as the owner of the suit property was having two sons and they want to carry out expansion of their business activities; (iii) it also appears from the fact of the case that at later stage, after filing of the written statement, the present petitioners (original defendants) came to know about the purchase of the property by the original plaintiffs and, therefore, an application was preferred under Order-VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of a written statement. This application is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the present petition. Looking to the para-2 of the said application, it appears that allegations have been levelled by the petitioners (original defendants) that the plaintiffs have acquired a sufficiently large property and they are not going to expand their business activities in the suit premises; (iv) it appears that after the knowledge of purchase of property by the original plaintiffs, the petitioners (original defendants) in November, 2008, immediately preferred an application for amendment in written statement, but, at the same time the evidence was already over in both the suits. Nonetheless, looking to the application preferred by the present petitioners under Order-VI, Rule-17 of C.P.C., the knowledge of the present petitioners start from November, 2008 also looking to the contention as stated in para-2 onwards in their application under Order-VI, Rule-17 of C.P.C., the amendment affects the very root of the suits. The amendment will also facilitate the trial Court in arriving at the correct decision of the dispute between the parties, therefore, also amendment require to be allowed in written statement in both the suits. (v) it also appears from the facts of the case as per contentions raised by the counsel for the respondents in the present petitions, no doubt they have acquired property as stated in para-2, in an application preferred by the present petitioners under Order-VI, Rule-17 of C.P.C. but, it is not true that they are not going to expand their business activities on the suit property. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have tried to delay the disposal of the suits and, therefore, a time bound schedule should be given to the trial Court so that no unnecessary adjournment may be given. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also assured this Court that they shall not ask for unnecessary adjournment and will be abide by whatsoever time may be given to trial Court for disposal of suits and they shall co-operate with the hearing and early disposal of both the suits. ;