IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, all amendments necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should be allowed, unless it causes injustice or prejudice to the other side.

ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed by the present petitioner – original plaintiff by challenging the impugned order dated 15.09.2023 passed below Exh.87 application in H.R.P. Civil Suit No.317 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court Ahmedabad, Court No.6, whereby the same was allowed, which was filed by the plaintiff for amendment.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the petitioner in this petition are that the respondents, namely, Gunvantbhai Raval, who was the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the property situated at Ahmedabad city, Usmanpura, Mouje Wadaj, TP Scheme No.15, Final Plot No.18, Shree Niketan Cooperative Housing Society, Sub-Plot No.2, was given on rent. Since the deceased Gunvantbhai Raval did not pay the municipal tax and other amount of rent, he became tenant in arrears and, therefore, the present petitioner has filed HRP Civil Suit No.317 of 2015 before the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad against the present defendants on 14.5.2015. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that originally, the suit was filed against Savitaben & Sons (Sandip Provision Raval Store), partner Gunvantbhai service. Upon summons on 30.09.2015, the written statement was filed and issues has been framed. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted the deposition on 7.5.2016 and cross-examination of the petitioner was over on 11.1.2017. Thereafter, on 14.4.2017, said Gunvantbhai Raval passed away and on 18.7.2017, the legal heirs of deceased Gunvantbhai Raval had been brought on record, who are the defendants and respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/4 herein. The respondent No.1/1 is the widowed wife, respondent No.1/2/3 are the sons and respondent No.1/4 is married daughter. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that after the demise of the defendant Gunvantbhai Raval and the legal heirs had been brought on record, and on 25.6.2018, the petitioner filed an application contending that two issues are to be added to the issues already framed and, therefore, an application was filed. To the aforesaid application, no reply was filed and on 25.9.2018, the same had been rejected.

It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that one of the suggested issues was already framed vide Issue No.5, and so far as the second issue which was to be re-cast according to the petitioner, it observed that there is no such averment and amendment application is preferred and, therefore, such issue cannot be framed at a particular stage. Therefore, such order dated 25.9.2018 was not challenged. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed an application vide Exh.45 and sought to produce so many new documents, which were never produced during the lifetime of deceased Gunvantbhai Raval. The petitioner objected for production of such documents which had straightway been exhibited by the court below which was the subject matter of challenge before this Court by filing SCA No.3163 of 2020, which came to be withdrawn upon the observations made by this Court vide order dated 5.2.2020. Thereafter, on 4.10.2020, further deposition of the petitioner was filed as legal heirs were joined to the proceedings and the cross-examination thereof is to commence. The examination-in-chief submitted on 4.10.2020 has been exhibited vide Exh.81. Thereafter, on 20.06.2022, the present petitioner filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, to which no reply has been filed. Consequently, by order dated 15.9.2023, that application was reject. Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 15.9.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court Ahmedabad, Court No.6, below application for amendment Exh.87 in HRP Suit No.317 of 2015, the present petition has been preferred.

3. Heard Mr. Baiju Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vasim Mansuri, the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Mr. Baiju Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner h