TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1047X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e trial Court has not relied upon the amended plaint for rejecting the application under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. In view of aforesaid I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order - Writ Petition No.4842 Of 2017 - - - Dated:- 2-4-2018 - A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. Shri H. R. Gadhia, Advocate for petitioner. Shri A. A. Mardikar, Advocate for respondent. Oral Judgment : Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner who is the defendant in the suit for recovery filed by the respondent is aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint and rejecting the application fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the plaint was liable to be rejected on account of non-disclosure of cause of action and that it was barred by limitation. Allowing the amendment would cause pre-jucide to the defendant. The trial Court on 01/07/2017 allowed the application for amendment and on the same day rejected the application filed by the defendant under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Being aggrieved the defendant challenged both the orders. 5. Shri H. R. Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant has sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and that the suit was also barred by limitation. After this application was filed the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the trial Court did not commit any error by deciding the application for amendment prior in time. For said purpose he placed reliance on the decision in Pramod Manoharrao Konge vs. Shantaram Balkrushan Dhok 2017(3) Mh.L.J. 223 . It was then submitted that the amendment was rightly allowed by the trial Court especially when the trial was yet to commence. In that regard he placed reliance on the decision in Sociedade De Formento Industrial Limited vs. Gurudas G. Pai 2016 (5) Mh.L.J. 143 and judgment of the Delhi High Court in RFA (OS) 13/2002 (Bharath Skins Corporation vs. Tanej Skins Company Pvt. Ltd.). 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have given due consideration to their respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation especially when it is pleaded that the last payment was made on 9. In so far as the amendment sought by adding paragraph 21A is concerned, the same indicates that the plaintiff intends to plead about the filing of the Company Petition and the continuous cause of action. Considering the nature of amendment as sought and in view of the finding that the cause of action for filing the suit was present when the plaint was filed, no error can be found with the trial Court when it allowed the application for amendment. In fact perusal of the order passed below Exhibit-14 indicates that the trial Court in paragraph 4 has not taken into consideration the amended portion of the plaint which is paragraph 21A while refusing to reject the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
