Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 49 (JHR)

Md. Hasan Rizvi v. Tata Iron and Steel

2011-01-21

POONAM SRIVASTAVA

body2011
JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastav, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent. 2. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 09.08.2010 passed by Munsif, Jamshedpur in Eviction Title Suit No. 30 of 2001, whereby an amendment application at the instance of the Defendant, has been refused. 3. The Impugned order is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting Respondent. The Petitioner does not intend to file a rejoinder affidavit. Hence, the writ petition is being decided finally. 4. The Plaintiff preferred the eviction suit from the quarter owned by the Company. The suit was instituted in the year 2001 and, thereafter, the written statement was filed in the year 2003. It appears that this is the third amendment moved at the instance of the Defendant. 5. The first amendment application was rejected by the court below which was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 2682 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 04.09.2009 holding that amendment sought is frivolous, which is Annexure A to the counter affidavit. 6. Subsequently, the second amendment was moved on 07.12.2009. The same was also rejected and was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 1094 of 2010. The order passed rejecting the second amendment application was upheld by this Court and the writ petition was dismissed once again, vide order dated 13.05.2010. 7. This is the third amendment which has been rejected by the court below on the ground specifically that this is nothing but a lingering process in the disposal of the eviction suit. A further observation by the court below is that the amendment in the written statement prayed by the Petitioner was well within the knowledge of the Defendant at the time of filing of the written statement and it is not a subsequent event. The entire exercise at the behest of Petitioner is to somehow delay the proceedings. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent states that the suit was instituted in the year 2001 and the written statement was filed in the year 2003. The amendment proposed at this stage is pertaining to the proceedings initiated under Section 630 of the Companies Act and it was admittedly prior to the institution of the eviction suit. The amendment is uncalled for and liable to be rejected. 9. The amendment proposed at this stage is pertaining to the proceedings initiated under Section 630 of the Companies Act and it was admittedly prior to the institution of the eviction suit. The amendment is uncalled for and liable to be rejected. 9. I have perused the previous orders as well as the impugned order. I am of the considered view that the amendment is only with a view to hold on to the proceedings on one pretext or the other. It is in these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the court below does not call for any interference. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has tried to stress that since the suit itself was instituted after dismissal of the proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act, much after the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 630 of the Act i.e. after 11 years to be specific. The Respondent should have no objection whatsoever and he has no face to say that the amendment is being filed at a very belated stage. Even accepting the contention of the Petitioner, I do not agree with the submission. The writ petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. 10. The court below is also directed that it should make every endeavour to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, without granting any undue adjournment. Petition dismissed.