(1.) The petitioner in this revision petition is sole respondent in H.R.C. No. 1267 of 1989 and 1269 of 1989. On his filing objections both the parties entered the witness box. When evidence was in progress landlord filed an application under Section 153 read with Section 151 of CPC, viz., LA. No. 12, requesting that he may be permitted to amend the cause title as under:
(2.) The said application was opposed by the tenant/petitioner.However, the trial court taking into consideration that by allowing the amendment no prejudice will be caused to the other side, passed an order permitting the landlord to delete the name of the respondent as represented by the General Manager A.S. Subramaniam and in its place to substitute partner Smt. Parvathi Subramanyam.
(3.) Shri Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned counsel appearing forpetitioner contended that such an amendment changes the very nature of the petition. According to him the trial court has erred in not noticing that the application to delete the name and correct the cause title is highly belated. The said application was made with a sole intention of harassing and pressurising the petitioner. In support of it, he has also placed reliance on a decision rendered by the High Court of Orissa reported in Bhubaneshwar Patel v Janak Patel and Others. Sri Sriram, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the landlord realising the mistake committed in giving the correct description contrary to the very lease deed and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings he thought it fit to bring a proper person in place of wrong person and as such the LA. was filed. When such a request was made trial court was justified in accepting the same and granting permission. He submitted that the order under challenge has not resulted in causing any hardship to the person deleted. In support of his contention he also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Purushottam Umedbhai and Co. v M/s. Manilal and Sons.