Court grants petitioners' amendment application, emphasizing efficient dispute resolution.

The court allowed the petitioners' application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, despite the respondent's objections. The petitioners were directed to file the amended petition within four weeks and pay costs to the respondent. The court stressed the importance of proper adjudication of disputes and avoiding multiple proceedings, allowing the amendments to be made. The case was listed for further hearing, with directions for filing additional counter affidavits and rejoinders. The focus was on resolving the disputes between the parties rather than assessing the grounds at the amendment stage.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for amendment to the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Summary:
The petitioners sought directions against the respondent to provide the statement of total dues and withdraw the cancellation of allotment of kiosk/shop/stall/shed. They claimed that despite paying the demanded amount, the condition of the stalls was bad and unhygienic, making it impossible to conduct business. They argued for the right to earn livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution and maintenance of status quo as per the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws Act 2007.

The petitioners applied for amendments to include additional grounds supporting their pleas, such as the unworkable condition of the shops, lack of reasonable infrastructure, and the respondent's alleged attempt to forcibly remove them from Nehru Place. The respondent contested the application, stating that the proposed amendments were an afterthought and that the stalls were in usable condition. They argued against the maintenance of additional grounds raised by the petitioners.

The court, considering the wide jurisdiction to allow amendments even with substantial delay, referred to previous judgments emphasizing the need for proper adjudication of disputes and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. The court allowed the application for amendment, imposing a cost on the petitioners to be paid to the respondent. The petitioners were directed to file the amended petition within four weeks.

Additionally, directions were given for the filing of additional counter affidavits and rejoinders, with the case listed for further hearing on a specified date. The court emphasized the importance of considering the necessity of proposed amendments for resolving the disputes between the parties, rather than adjudicating on the veracity of the grounds at the amendment stage.

---