By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court numbericed the defence of the appellants in the following terms There is numberretracting of statement made in written statement already filed by the defendants.
On the same day, another application, which was marked as IA 10 of 2006, had also been filed purported to be under Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code for production of additional documents.
By reason of an order dated 18.07.2007, the learned Principal Civil Judge Sr.
14013 of 2007.
It, however, took into companysideration the fact that the said IAs were filed after the affidavit of evidence had been filed by the plaintiffs appellants.
21 lakhs.
1 as she is wife of deceased Prashant against whom whose allegations are made and this would have been in here knowledge right from the beginning and to have said knowledge again she need number have any knowledge of business or social activities and thus she also did number require any time to gather that the information which are well within her own knowledge A writ petition was filed thereagainst.
Further regarding husband of defendant No.
On or about 8.11.2006, an application had been filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code , which was marked as IA 9 of 2006, seeking amendment to the written statement.
Defendants Respondents are the predecessors in interest of the said Prashant Sooji.
An application for amendment of the written statement was filed on 8.11.2006.
Dates had been fixed for cross examination of the said witnesses.
In between the period 17.04.2004 and 8.11.2006, however, indisputably issues were framed and parties filed their respective affidavits by way of evidence.
According to the plaintiffs, one Prashant Sooji since deceased executed an agreement of sale on 15.01.2001 in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs.
1 being addicted to bad vices like womanizing, drinking etc again this would have been within the personal knowledge of defendant No.
A written statement was filed on 17.04.2004.
On or about 16.12.2003, the plaintiffs appellants filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale.
Whether pleadings can be directed to be amended after the hearing of a case begins is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
