1974 (4) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the High Court correct to allow the amendment with a laconic order "Application for amendment allowed".?

Held that:- The appeal filed by defendants 2 and 3 being directed against a mere finding given by the trial court was not maintainable; defendants 2 and 3 were not denied by the preliminary decree the right to pay the decretal amount; and the two defendants could even have applied under Order 21, Rule 89, for setting aside the sale in favour of the appellant but they failed to do so as, presumably, they were not interested in paying the amount. The High Court was therefore wholly in error in allowing the amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal, particularly when defendants 2 and 3 had neither explained the long delay nor sought its condonation - we allow the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court.