? *_'t' 2l * , ,}, IN THE HIGH COURT OF c.R.P.36/201r ARUN GANGULI AMRESH GANGULI Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN ORDER 27.04.2011 CM APPL .8I46;,NON DELHI AT NEW DELI{I ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish V. Shankar, Advocate versus ..... Respondent o ba This amendment application has been filed by the petitioner pursuant to the liberty granted to him vide order dated 16th March, 20Il on which date the revision petition was taken up for preliminary consideration. By way of this amendment application the petitioner wants to amend the revision petition by adding additional ground to challenge an earlier order dated 5.7.2010 also. This application is allowed. The amended revision petition already stands filed and the same is taken on record. c.R.P.36/2011 By way of this revision petition the petitioner challenges framing of additional issues framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.01.201 I in his suit for mandatory injunction against his brother, the respondent herein. The additional issues arose consequent upon some amendments being permitted to be carried out in the written statement of the respondent-defendant vide order dated 5tr' July, 2070. The petitioner-plaintiff did not earlier challenge the trial Court's order allowing amendment in the written statement and only now by way of amendment in ihis petition he seeks to challenge that order also. c.R.P.36t20tl Pase I of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified d-ar 't tt \, Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issues now framed cannot be decided in the present suit since L&DO is not a pafiy in the suit and so the question whether the transfer of title done by L&DO in the name of the petitioner in 1976 by accepting the respondent's claim that the petitioner had relinquished his interest in the suit property was legal or not cannot be decided in this suit and therefore the additional issues framed on 20.01 .2011 rclating to the transfer/conveyance effected by the L&DO need to be deleted. In my view, however, whether or not the defence raised by the respondent-defendant after carrying out amendment in his written statement has any merit or not and whether the additional issues can be decided in the absence of L&DO or not shall be . decided by the trial Court at an appropriate stage and the petitioner-plaintiff can urge all possible points before the trial Court against the defence taken by the respondent in his amended written statement. There is no.iregularity committed by the learned trial Court by framing additional issues which do arise out of the amended written statement oi th" defendant and as far as the challenge to the order dated 5.7.2010 of the trial Court allowing amendment of the written starement is concerned it is too belated to be enteftained. This petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine. APRIL 27,20Lllpg c.R.P.36/2011 Page? of2