Mayur Sahakari Kukutpalan Society Ltd v. Sampatrao Raghu More deceased thru LRs

Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the petitioner. ... CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 20th June 2011 P.C.

Heard.

This petition is directed against the order dated 19 March 2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Islampur allowing an application made by respondent nos.1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) for recasting of the issues.

The respondents filed the suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Islampur for an injunction restraining the petitioner from disturbing their possession of the suit property. Petitioner contested the suit by filing of a written statement. Issues were initially 2 WP No.4413/11 framed. Subsequently an application was made by the respondents to frame two additional issues as to whether they were tenants of the property described in paragraph nos.1(a) and 1(b) of the application. The order allowing the application is challenged in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application was made after 10 years of the filing of the suit and therefore, application should not have been granted.

Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issued on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. The power to amend, add or alter the existing issues can be exercised by the court at any stage before passing of the decree. Therefore, mere delay of filing of an application for amendment cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for amendment. The question that would be required to be considered by the court for adding to the existing issues is whether the additional issue is necessary for determining the real matter in controversy between the parties.

In paragraph no.3 of the plaint, respondent had specifically claimed that their father Raghu H. More was the protected tenant and they as his heirs had inherited his rights in the suit property. In paragraph no.2 of the written statement, the respondents have 3 WP No.4413/11 denied the said allegation and in particular the allegation that respondents’ father was a protected tenant. In view of the specific pleadings of the parties the issue regarding tenancy does arise in the suit and it was required to be framed. No exception can be taken to the impugned order. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected summarily.

(D.G.KARNIK, J)