Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhau Dahyalal Rachchha vs Legal Heirs And Representative Of Late ... on 9 February, 2016
Author: S.H.Vora
Bench: S.H.Vora
C/SCA/262/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 262 of 2016
==========================================================
BHARATBHAU DAHYALAL RACHCHHA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS AND REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE NAUTAMLAL DOMADIA &
1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NACHIKET D MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 09/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner (original defendant) challenges the order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Rajkot below Exh.20 in Regular Civil Suit No.82 of 2008 whereby, the learned trial Judge permitted to amend the plaint.
2. It is the case of the respondents (original plaintiffs) in the amendment application below Exh.20 that after filing of the suit, they came to know that the present petitioner has acquired suitable accommodation and, therefore, on that ground, the respondents - original plaintiffs made a prayer to amend the plaint by adding grounds available under Section 13(1)(L) of the Rent Act.
3. Having heard submissions made at bar by the learned advocate for the petitioner and considering the impugned Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Wed Feb 10 03:09:53 IST 2016 C/SCA/262/2016 ORDER order, it appears that the learned trial Judge has found that proposed amendment of the plaint would not change basic structure of the suit and further, it would prevent multiplicity of proceedings between the parties with respect to the same subject matter. The learned advocate for the petitioner also stated at bar that the evidence has not yet commenced and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to either party and, therefore, considering the impugned order, this Court do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Hence, present petition, being devoid of merits, stands rejected.
(S.H.VORA, J.) Hitesh Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Wed Feb 10 03:09:53 IST 2016