The court cannot permit the amendment of the written statement in a situation where the application is not bona fide and is filed with a view to frustrate the decree passed by the court of law.

1. One Prabodh Chander Gupta instituted a civil original suit on 16.10.1999 in the court of Sub-Judge, Rajouri against the respondent-defendant, wherein he prayed for passing of decree for ejectment against respondent-defendant in respect of the suit shop. Prabodh Chander Gupta passed away during the trial of the suit on 24.01.2006. The appellants herein were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff-Prabodh Chander Gupta. The trial court vide its judgment dated 14.07.2011 decreed the suit in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs and against the respondent-defendant.

2. Respondent-defendant filed statutory appeal against the decree and judgment dated 14.07.2011 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Rajouri (for short "Appeal Court"). During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-defendant filed an application before the appeal court wherein he prayed that he be permitted to lead additional evidence in accordance with the mandate contained in Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The appeal court rejected the application of the respondent-defendant. The order of the appeal court was challenged before the writ court in writ petition bearing OWP No. 1691/2011. The respondent-defendant was permitted by the writ court to withdraw the writ petition. Moreover, the liberty was also given to the respondent-defendant to lay motion for seeking amendment of the written statement before the appeal court.

3. The application seeking amendment of the written statement was filed by the respondent-defendant before the appeal court. To the said application, plaintiffs-appellants herein, filed objections. The appeal court after hearing the parties and considering the matter, dismissed the application vide its order dated 01.05.2012. The respondent-defendant again challenged the order of the appeal court before the writ court by filing writ petition, which was registered as OWP No. 685/12. Learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 06.06.2012 allowed the writ petition of the respondent-defendant. Learned Single Judge also allowed the application seeking amendment of the written statement. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which is called in question in this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

4. When this appeal came up for consideration before us, Mr. V.R. Wazir, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant raised preliminary objections about its maintainability. Learned counsel submitted that the petition, in which order of the appeal court dated 01.05.2012 was challenged, was filed by invoking the powers of the High Court under Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K. Learned counsel submitted that learned Single Judge exercised the supervisory powers conferred upon him by Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K and allowed the petition of respondent-defendant. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction cannot be challenged by filing LPA. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon decision of the learned Single Judge passed in OWP No. 1214/2011 decided on 12.12.2011 in case titled Mustaq Ahmad Dar and anr. v. Nazir Ahmad Dhar reported in AIR 2012 Jammu and Kashmir 123. Learned counsel also referred to Division Bench judgement of this court in case titled The J&K Co-operative Bank v. Shams-ud-din Bacha reported in 1970 KLJ 323. Learned counsel also referred to case titled Gurushanth Pattedar, Appellant v. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills, Gulbarga and another, Respondents reported in AIR 2005 Karnataka 377; case titled Swapan Kumar Bandopadhyay and etc. v. Sail and ors., etc. reported in AIR 2006 Jharkhand 19; case titled Surya Dev Rai, Appellant v. Ram Chander Rai and ors. Respondents reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3044 and case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty and anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8