JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J.
1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-applicant in the present S.C.C. Revision under Section 25 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act challenging an order dated 23.3-2002, passed on an amendment application paper No. 35-Ka. by Additional District Judge, Agra (Court No. 15( in S.C.C. Cose No. 22 of 1999. Hari Bhagwan Bansal v. Vinai Kumar Jain and Ors. pending in the aforesaid Court, whereby the court below allowed amendment in the plaint, as per amendment application paper No. 35-Ka.
2. After hearing the parties, the Court below has passed an elaborate order and given reasons for allowing the amendment apart from giving reference of various judgments of this Court as well as that of Apex Court. It is now well-settled that amendments should be allowed. I do not find any ground in the revision before this Court that the order allowing the amendment is mala fide. The order allowing the amendment is fully justified as also reported in case of AIR 1969 SC 1267. However, there is no merit in the present revision. However, I am of the opinion that amendment having been sought in the plaint after two years, has certainly caused inconvenience to the defendant and granting amendment on payment of Rs. 100 only is without basis or justification apart from being arbitrary. No inquiry or investigation is required to assess as to how much money, time or energy was wasted in contesting the case before the amendment was allowed. Considering the same, 1 assess that defendant-applicant will be suitably compensated, if amendment is allowed on payment of Rs. one thousand. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has fairly conceded to the above proposition.
3. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 23.3.2002 is modified to the extent that amendment as per application paper No. 35-Ka. shall be incorporated, if not already incorporated, on payment of Rs. 1.000 as costs. If amendments have already been incorporated on payment of Rs. 100 as costs, the balance amount shall also be deposited within one month or on the next date fixed, whichever be earlier.
4. The revision stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
5. Considering the nature of the case and the hearing of the suit may not be delayed unnecessarily, 1 direct the trial court concerned to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within one year.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party also placed an order dated 7.2.2002 in Revision No. 198 of 2000, in which this Court dismissed the said revision as infructuous and further directed the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. In view of the order of the High Court, the plaintiff opposite party, if so advised, may file a certified copy of this judgment as well as copy of High Court's order dated 7.2.2002 and on such an application being filed, as indicated above, the trial court shall decide the suit within six months. If any party seeks adjournment in the suit on any ground whatsoever, the same shall be granted on payment of penal cost and exemplary cost. In case the trial court is unable to decide the case within the stipulated period due to strike of advocates, the time for deciding the suit shall be deemed to be extended for the period of advocates' strike.