9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mandi at Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The contention of the petitioners is that they were issued possession letters dated 13th September, 2004 but possession slips were given on 24th February, 2005 and even the workable possession has not been given to the petitioners till date. The plea of the petitioners is that pursuant to the directions by the Court, the entire amount demanded by the respondent has been paid. However the condition of the stalls allotted to the petitioners is stated to be bad and unhygienic and the respondent is allegedly not doing anything to improve the condition. According to the petitioners it is not possible and feasible to sit there and the stalls cannot be used for doing any kind of business. In the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght and is an attempt to tide over the material facts which has been suppressed by the petitioners and which had been pointed out in the counter affidavit already filed by the respondent. It is contended that the plea regarding unworkable condition or not having reasonable infrastructure has not been taken in the writ petition and in the circumstances the ground regarding the facts not alleged in the writ petition cannot be allowed to be taken by the petitioners. It is contended that no averment has been made regarding the alternative stalls allotted, not being in a workable condition. In the circumstances, it is contended that the application is not maintainable at this stage. The respondent has also contended that the area is lying clean ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of the DDA in para 4 of its counter affidavit. It is contented that the third ground K does not survive. Regarding ground L it is contended that the same cannot be entertained in view of the order dated 10th September, 2008. Regarding ground M it is contended that it also does not survive in view of the lapse of the Act relied on by the petitioners and regarding creation of additional hawking spaces it is contended that no hawking spaces are to be created by the respondent. The jurisdiction of the court to allow amendment of pleading is wide enough to permit amendments even in cases where there has been a substantial delay in filing the amendment application. The Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that the dominant purpose of al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is whether in cases where the delay has extinguished the right of the party by virtue of expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in law, can the court in the exercise of its discretion take away the right accrued to another party by allowing such belated amendments. 14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of litigation. In para 4 of the same judgment the Apex Court has quoted the following passage from the judgment in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn (1966) 1 SCR 796 (AIR pp.97-98, para 7) The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing cost on the petitioner. Consequently, the application for amendment is allowed subject to a cost of ₹ 10,000/- payable by the petitioners to the respondent. Cost be paid within four weeks. Amended petition be filed. WP(C) No.7546/2007 Amended writ petition be filed within four weeks. Additional counter affidavit to the amended petition, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Rejoinder, if any, before the next date of hearing. List on 8th September, 2009. CM No.6956/2009 The learned counsel for the petitioners accepts notice and states that the reply to the application has already been filed on 28th July, 2009. The reply is not on record. Counsel to take steps to have it placed on record. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
