Lakhan Singh vs Rajendra Bhaderia on 6 May, 2010

                            W.P.No.5872 of 2010
6.5.2010
          Shri Devendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
          Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the
plaintiff amended the plaint three times but no opportunity was extended
to the petitioner for consequential amendment. An application was filed
by the petitioner which was in consequence to the amendment made by
the plaintiff but is has been rejected mainly on the ground of delay. It is
submitted that earlier application for amendment moved by the petitioner
was rejected by the trial court but for the same fact, an application filed
by the plaintiff was allowed.
          In view of the aforesaid, a notice be issued to the respondents to

show cause why this petition be not admitted/disposed of finally.

Petitioner to serve notice to respondent no.1 by ‘Humdast’.
Petitioner to deposit Rs.500/- before the next date of hearing in
the trial court and if the aforesaid amount is deposited by the petitioner in
the trial court, the the trial court shall adjourn the hearing of the case
awaiting further order of this court. It is also made clear that if the case is
closed the judgment, then this order shall be seized to be effective and
trial court is free to pronounce the judgment as per law.

Matter be listed on 17.5.2010.

      (K.K. Lahoti)                                      (G.S. Solanki)
           JUDGE                                             JUDGE
Preeti/