Madhukarrao (Dead)through L.Rs. Smt. Saraswatibai M. Ghate & Ors. v. Sahadeo B. Kale

Madhukarrao (Dead)through L.Rs. Smt. Saraswatibai M. Ghate and others. VERSUS Sahadeo B. Kale - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri J.J. Chandurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 5 . , 2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the trial court on 22/10/2010 allowing an application filed by the respondent for filing written statement to the counter claim filed by the petitioner subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,500/-. The trial court rightly held that though there was some delay in filing the written statement to the counter claim, it was necessary to allow the application for filing written statement to the counter claim as the proposed amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. Since the suit was filed in the year 2000, the trial court rightly did not consider the provisions of the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Actually, the application filed by the respondent was for filing of written statement to the counter claim by the proposed amendment at para 8-1. The trial 2 court erroneously observed that two reliefs were sought by the respondent by filing the application dated 20/7/2010. In fact, the application was merely for granting permission to reply the counter claim raised by the petitioner in his written statement and the said application was rightly allowed by the trial court by the impugned order dated 22/10/2010 as the proposed amendment was necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties. Since the petition is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Hirekhan JUDGE