JUDGMENT Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Order dated 25.9.1996, passed by the revisional court in S.C.C. Revision No. 43 of 1995, Murari Lal v. Mahesh Chandra and Ors., whereby learned Additional District Judge rejected the application for amendment in the written statement moved by the defendants-revisionists.
2. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. At this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally.
3. The controversy involved in this petition is very short. A suit for eviction of defendants and recovery of arrears of rent and damages was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Khurja (Bulandshahr). The defendants filed written statement and contested the suit on several grounds. After having heard counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record learned Judge. Small Causes decreed the suit with costs.
4. The defendants filed S.C.C. Revision No. 43 of 1995 and during pendency of the revision, the defendants felt necessity to amend their written statement in view of the Full Bench of this Court decision in the case of Nootan Kumar v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Banda and Ors., 1993 (2) ARC 204 and prayed for adding para 17A in the written statement and para 8A in the memorandum of revision. In other words, the defendants wanted to raise a plea that the landlords let out the accommodation in dispute to the defendants without any allotment Order and as such, the tenancy was void. An objection was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the pleadings of the parties also, learned Judge rejected the application mainly on the ground that the application was highly belated and defendants had admitted that were residing in the disputed accommodation as tenants.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that it is well-settled that an amendment may be allowed by the Court at any stage of the proceedings and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance on three decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Dipendra Kaur Sethi, 2005 (58) ALR 155, Dondapati Narayana Ready v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy and Ors., JT 2001 (7) SC 112 and Pankaja and Anr. v. Yellappa (dead) and Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 415. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that law is well-settled that the Courts should be liberal in allowing the amendment in pleading and It may be allowed at any stage of proceeding. Therefore, learned revisional court was not at all justified in rejecting the application for amendment. It was also urged that the defendants wanted to raise a legal plea through the amendment In question that the alleged tenancy in their favour was void, as provided under Sections 11 and 13 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the delay in moving the application for amendment is not fatal. However, the revisional court committed no illegality in rejecting the application because legal plea could be raised at any time before the Court and learned counsel for the revisionist could address the Court on the point, which was sought to be raised. In his view, there was no necessity to amend the pleading and the impugned Order does not suffer from any Illegality or impropriety.
8. After having considered the rival contention of the parties, 1 find force in the contention of petitioner's counsel. Admittedly, law is well-settled on the point that the amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely on the ground of delay and even the Apex Court of the country has allowed the amendment in the pleadings. The law is very liberal on this point. So far as other objection of learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, I am not inclined to accept his contention. The law is well-settled that one must raise all factual as well legal pleas in his pleading and then alone, he is entitled to lead oral and documentary evidence and address the Court.
9. In my view in absence of pleading, the defendants had no right to make their submission before the revisional court or trial court and amendment was rightly prayed. I, therefore, hold that the learned revisional court committed illegality in rejecting the application. Consequently, the petition must succeed.
10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Order dated 25.9.1996 (Annexure-1 to the petition) is hereby quashed. The application for amendment is allowed. The revisional court is directed to allow the defendants to incorporate the amendment within the period fixed by it and shall try to dispose of revision within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. The stay order, If any, stands vacated.
12. The parties are directed to appear before the revisional court on 4.3.2005.