Court No. - 69
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No.-44 of 2021
Revisionist :-Virendra Singh
Opposite Party :-Vikrant Kapoor
Counsel for Revisionist :-Anil Kumar Mehrotra, Srijan Mehrotra
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Defect as marked by the Stamp Reporter in the memo of revision stands removed.
Office is directed to allot regular number to the revision.
The instant SCC Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Act, Court No.1, Meerut in SCC Suit No.21 of 2016 (Sri Vikrant Kapoor vs. Virendra), whereby amendment application No.57 dated 25.10.2019 filed by the defendant-revisionist has been rejected.
The facts in brief are that on 22.08.2016, the plaintiff- respondent had filed Suit No.21 of 2016 against the defendant-applicant for eviction of house and realization of arrears of rent in which the defendant-revisionist had filed written statement on 09.03.2017. It is further alleged that in the year 2017, the defendant-revisionist had also instituted Original Suit No.551 of 2017 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meerut for cancellation of the document, which was executed by the plaintiff- respondent. On 14.03.2018, the defendant-revisionist had moved an application under Section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, which was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Act, Court No.1 vide order dated 17.09.2018. Against the order dated 17.09.2018, the defendant- revisionist had filed revision, which was numbered as SCC Revision No.72 of 2018 (Virendra Singh vs. Vikrant Kapoor) and same was dismissed by order dated 03.01.2019. For recalling the order dated 03.01.2019, an application had been filed, which is still pending. On 25.10.2019, the defendant-revisionist had also filed an amendment application, which was numbered as Amendment Application No.57d for amending the written statement in the aforesaid Suit No.21 of 2016 in which the plaintiff-respondents had filed reply/objection. The Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Act, Special Court vide impugned order dated 14.09.2021 rejected the amendment application, hence, the instant SCC Revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the lower court has failed to appreciate the fact that since the defendant-revisionist had categorically denied to being the tenant of the disputed premises, the amendment sought by the defendant-revisionist has relevancy for deciding the question of tenant relationship. The court below has also failed to appreciate the fact that amendment sought by the defendant-revisionist, if allowed, would not change the nature of suit originally instituted by the plaintiff-respondent. He has further submitted that the court below has acted illegally in rejecting the amendment application, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy, (2009) 10 SCC 84, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K. Modi and others, 2006 ACJ 989, Jayanti Roy vs. Dass Estates Pvt. Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 175 (177), Fritiz T.M. Clement and another vs. Sudhakaran Nadar and another (2002) 3 SCC 605 as well as this Court in the cases of Ram Asare vs. Gyan Babu and others, 2006 All. C.J. 1951 and Smt. Shahjahan vs. District Judge, Faizabad and others, 2010 ACJ 785.
After hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as upon perusal of the record and in the light of the above noted decisions, I find that the proposed amendment is necessary and imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made and also in the light of the above noted decisions, the instant revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.09.20210 passed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Act, Court No.1, Meerut in SCC Suit No.21 of 2016 (Sri Vikrant Kapoor vs. Virendra) is hereby set aside. The Amendment Application No.57d filed by the defendant-revisionist is also allowed. The necessary amendment shall be carried out by the defendant- revisionist before the court below within 15 days from today. Court below is also directed to decide the aforementioned Suit No.21 of 2016 in accordance with law, expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted by the court below and if the adjournment is sought by either of the parties, the court below shall impose heavy cost upon the parties.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Ajeet