JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 17.5.2004 and 14.7.2004, passed by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 contained in Annexures-6 and 8 respectively to the writ petition and also for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party No. 2 to decide the application for amendment moved by the petitioner afresh.
2. I have heard Shri Virendra Mishra for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Sharma for the Opposite Party No. 3.
3. It appears that by the impugned order dated 17.5.2004 (Annexure-6), the amendment application of the petitioner-defendant moved for amendment in written statement in S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 1993 has been dismissed. The petitioner-defendant filed S.C.C. Revision No. 62 of 2004 which has also been dismissed vide order dated 14.7.2004 (Annexure-8).
4. After perusal of the document on record, it appears that opposite party No. 3 T.N. Kaul purchased House No. L-III/1 Sector-D, Aliganj Housing Scheme, Lucknow on Hire Purchase Agreement by the Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow and let it out to the petitioner in November, 1982. In January, 1993, the opposite party No. 3 T.N. Kaul filed S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 1993 for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner on the ground that the house is not covered by the provisions of U. P. Urban Building Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XIII of 1972). This suit in which the impugned order has been passed is pending since 1993. It is on the application for amendment in the written statement moved on 17.5.2004, that the impugned order dated 17.5.2004 (Annexure-6) has been passed rejecting the proposed amendment in the written statement. The defendant-petitioner has proposed to add Paragraphs 24 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) in the written statement. The copy of this amendment application is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The copy of the written statement in which the amendment is sought, is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The case of the defendant in the written statement is that the disputed premises is not exempted from the operation of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 as envisaged under Section 2 thereof as the construction of the building has been completed prior to April 26, 1985. In the proposed amendment the defendant has given the details how 120 houses were constructed by the Lucknow Development Authority and how some of the houses were given to L.I.C. and how the payments were made to the contractor and in what manner the allotment was made by the Lucknow Development Authority. The proposed amendment has been refused mainly on the ground that these facts are not relevant for deciding the main issue involved in the suit and these facts were in the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner from the very beginning when the suit was filed and the intention of the defendant is not bona fide and it is only for delaying the disposal of the pending suit. The revisional court has also upheld the findings of the trial Court that the evidence which is being adduced by the proposed amendment is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the main issue involved in the suit.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the proposed amendment is to elaborate the defence and mere delay in making the amendment will not prejudice the case of the plaintiff. It has also been argued that during trial amendments are allowed liberally and the merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment.
6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the decisions of the Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P.) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97; Sampath Kumar v. Ayuyakannu and Anr., 2003 (1) AWC 18 (SC) : 2003 (1) SCCD 1 : (2002) 7 SCC 559 and Punjab National Bank v. Indian Bank and Anr., 2003 (3) AWC 2291 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCCD 551 : (2003) 6 SCC 79.
7. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has given a detailed chart of different dates to show the conduct of the petitioner-defendant in delaying the proceedings at different stages since 1993 and has argued that the proposed amendment is neither relevant for deciding the main issue nor it is bona fide and in support of his contention, he has referred two earlier decisions of this Court in Ashok Chandra Srivastava v. Master Ashish Kumar and Ors., 2004 (2) ARC 254 and Rais Ahmad v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Badaun and Ors., 2004 (54) ALR 511. After seeing the prolonged litigation between the parties and the main issue involved in the suit, I am of the view that the proposed amendments do not appear to be relevant to be inserted in the written statement. At the most it can be considered if, sufficient material is placed on the record to decide the main issue about the application of the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It is sufficient if, such evidence is adduced and in that case the amendment of pleading is not relevant. It appears from the facts on record that the proposed amendment is not bona fide and it is only to prolong the proceedings pending since 1973.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.