Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9584 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramdeen Sharma Respondent :- Firm Raghunath Prasad Pyare Lal, Kanpur Nagar Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2018 by which the Revisional Court in SCC Revision No. 30/2015 has rejected the application 110Ga. The revision is pending at the instance of the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Small Causes decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction. During the pendency of the revision, the plaintiff-opposite party sought amendment in the plaint to the effect that it had recently come to know that certain residential premises was allotted to the defendant within the municipal limits of district Kanpur Nagar, therefore, he was not entitled to benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The amendment application was allowed by the Revisional Court and time was granted to the petitioner to file additional written statement. The petitioner filed additional written statement and in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the same, he made various assertions, which were not in reference to the amendment sought, but mentioned about non-inclusion of taxes in the rent and due payment of rent by the revisionist. The plaintiff-opposite party thereafter filed application 95Ga for striking off paragraphs 3 to 6 of the additional written statement. The Revisional Court allowed the said application by order dated 25.7.2018 on the ground that the pleadings contained in paragraphs 3 to 6 were not in reply to the amended pleadings. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application paper No. 110 Ga seeking amendment in the original written statement and thereby he again sought to introduce the same paragraphs which were directed to be deleted by the Revisional Court order dated 25.7.2018. By impugned order dated 23.10.2018, the Revisional Court has rejected the said application after recording a categorical finding that the pleadings which are sought to be introduced are already contained in paragraphs 3, 8, 10 & 18 of the written statement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the suit was decreed after striking off the defence of the petitioner, therefore, the amendment sought was necessary. However, he himself admits that the pleadings which are sought to be introduced by amendment are already contained in the original written statement. Moreover, the amendment sought at the revisional stage in respect of facts which were already in the knowledge of the petitioner could not be permitted in view of the amendment to Order 6, Rule 17 by Act No. 22 of 2002. It places a restriction on an amendment application being allowed after trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. It is also noteworthy that since the defence of the petitioner had already been struck off, as submitted by counsel for the petitioner, therefore, in the eyes of law, there is no written statement nor any application seeking amendment thereof was maintainable.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2018 AM/-