IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1856 of 2011 (M/S) Mange Ram ..… Petitioner Versus Manoj Kumar ….. Respondent Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Narain Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.C. Kandpal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Udhyog Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.7.2011 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee in P.A. Case No.03 of 2006 and order dated 25.8.2011 passed by District Judge, Haridwar in Revision No.411 of 2011, whereby the amendment application moved by the petitioner- defendant was rejected. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that respondent-plaintiff filed a release application before the Prescribed Authority in the year 2006, for release of the shop in question. The said case was registered as P.A. Case No.03 of 2006. Written statement was filed by the petitioner and the witnesses were examined. After exchange of pleadings between the parties, the case was fixed for arguments. In between, the petitioner moved an amendment application for amendment in the written statement and sought permission to include certain facts that were inadvertently left in the written statement. The main 2 ground, which was sought to be added by way of amendment application, is that the defendants have acquired goodwill in the shop in question. Other grounds were regarding the bonafide need. The learned Prescribed Authority, after hearing the arguments, rejected the application on the ground that the case has been fixed for final arguments and the petitioner- defendant have failed to establish this fact that inspite of due diligence he could not have raised this plea in the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. V. Manohar Singh & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2832, wherein it has been held that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. By a perusal of the written statement, filed along with the writ petition, it transpires that the plea of goodwill had already been taken by the petitioner- defendant before the Prescribed Authority. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the papers on record, I do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned order. Impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed summarily. (B.S. Verma, J.) 19.9.2011 RG