6.1 During arguments, learned counsel for petitioner took me through the above mentioned factual matrix as pleaded by both sides and contended that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was argued that the amendments sought on behalf of petitioner are necessary in order to effectively adjudicate the controversy involved in the suits. It was also argued that in view of the admitted position as regards unauthorized construction in the larger premises, it would be travesty of justice if the petitioner/defendant is made to pay use and occupation charges of the entire subject property. Further, it was contended that since petitioner is admittedly owner of one of the flats in the larger premises, it cannot be denied user of common area, but the same is obstructed by the respondents by enacting a fence in the lawn and by constructing unauthorizedly on the terrace. Since the larger premises till date have not been issued completion certificate and occupation certificate, the subject property cannot fetch any rental or mesne profits, according to learned counsel for petitioner. Placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. vs Manohar Singh & Ors. , (2006) 6 SCC 498, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since the amendments sought do not, in any manner aim to withdraw any admission already made in the written statement and since the question of limitation cannot be examined at the stage of examining an amendment application, the amendments sought ought to have been allowed. With the help of judgment in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. vs Kiran Appaso
