AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 234 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
By the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 (Annexure - P/1), the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order 6
Rule 17 of CPC finding that trial has already commenced.
Learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff would submit that application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment could have been allowed
by the trial Court as no further evidence is required to be produced by the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no further evidence is required to be adduced on behalf of plaintiff on
amended petition, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- to the defendants on
the next date of hearing and it is made clear that petitioner will not be allowed to lead further evidence on amended petition. However, the defendants
would be entitled to cross-examine the already examined witness, if any and also to make consequential amendment, if necessary and would also be at
liberty to move an application for modification of the order, if they are aggrieved.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost(s).
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for needful and compliance.