( 1 ) I propose to dispose off the Plaintiff s application filed on 7/4/1999 under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Procedure Code. ) for passing a decree on the basis of admissions stated to have been recorded in the Written statement filed by the Defendant, namely, M/s, M. M. Bhagat and Company. The claim in the plaint is for a sum of Rs. 17,94,629. 23 together with interest thereon, towards the occupation charges payable per day of rooms in the Plaintiff s Hotel Claridges. After several opportunities had not been availed of by the Defendant for putting in written Statement, the Plaintiff had been constrained to file on 18/3/1999 I. A. No. 3102/99 under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the day when this application was listed before the Court for consideration, the written Statement was filed. Again, the Defendant pursued a policy of protraction and procrastination, inasmuch as a Reply to the Plaintiff s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. was filed on 15/9/1999, after costs were imposed for the delay. The Reply was accompanied by an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. for amendment of the written Statement, being I. A. No. 10759/99. At the first hearing of this amendment application learned counsel for the Plaintiff pointed out that the Defendant had incorporated further admissions in the application and for this reason the Defendant s prayer for permission to withdraw it should be declined. Nonetheless, I allowed the withdrawal observing that the alleged admissions could still be taken into consideration when the present application I. A. 3823/99 was taken up for disposal, that is on the adjourned date of 23. 10. 2000. The Defendant has shown that it is indefatigable; yet another application being I. A. No. 9066/2000, has been filed on 29/8/2000 for amendment. These are the annals of the litigation thus far.

( 2 ) THE immediate question that arises is whether the Plaintiff s application for the passing of a decree should be disposed off prior to the Defendant s second application for the amendment of the written Statement, the latter having been filed subsequently. The argument of learned counsel for the Defendant, as is usually that of learned counsel for parties similarly placed, is that if the amendment application is not taken up first, and the suit is decreed, this application would become infructuous. while not intending to make it an inflexible practice, I am of the opinion that applications should preferably be disposed off according to their antiquity. The present case demonstrates that the first application for amendment was withdrawn and the second one filed almost immediately thereafter even though leave to file it was not even asked for. The intention behind such applications is usually to protract litigation. I shall therefore take up the plaintiff s application under Order XII Rule 6 of the civil Procedure Code. along with the second application for amendment as I am convinced that the interests of justice, in contradistinction to the interests of a particular party, so demand. This also appears to me to be expedient since the applications for amendment tend to elucidate the nature of the pleadings viewed by the plaintiff as admissions of fact. Quite obviously this entails a quick consideration of the contents and substance of the Defendant s application.

( 3 ) THE relevant paragraphs of the pleadings are reproduced in juxtaposition so that the response/defence is easily discernible.

( 4 ) IN the withdrawn application for amendment I. A. 10759/1999 the Defendant had proposed to add the words "in his capacity as Chairman of Messers M. M. Bhagat and company" in the last sentence of the fifth paragraph. Even consequent upon the withdrawal of this application, it must be inferred by the Court as having now been clarified that this action was taken by the said Shri m