ISHWAR SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed by order dated 14th May, 2003. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in filing of the application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 & 151 CPC. The review application was decided after more than 10 years, i.e. on 16th August, 2013. Both the orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. Along with the petition, the petitioner has also filed an application being C.M. No. 19134/2013 for condonation of delay of 10 years 2 months and 18 days in filing the petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has referred a decision of this Court in the case of Pritam Dass, Trading as Alka Food Industries vs. M/s. Anil Food Industries, reported in : 112 (2004) DLT 603, wherein it was held that the revision is not maintainable. The reasons are given in paras 2 to 4 of the said judgment which read as under:

(2.) THE Order which has been impugned in this Revision denies the amendment of the plaint. In Prem Bakshi and Others Vs. Dharam Dev and Ors., : (2002) 2 SCC 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is almost inconceivable that an Order permitting amendment of pleadings would cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to any party. These observations were obviously made in the context of unamended Section 115 of the CPC. It has been held by the Apex Court that amendments of procedural nature take immediate effect and therefore while they may not adversely affect proceedings which already have been decided, the amended procedure must be applied to all proceedings which come up for decision. The intendment behind Section 115 of the CPC was to root out the practice of filing revisions against interlocutory orders. It cannot be gainsaid that the reasons for which the impugned Order is presently assailed can also be raised and will have to be decided at the final disposal of the suit. Order XLIII Rule 1A is apposite, since it clarifies that such Orders can also be questioned after a final Order or Judgment is delivered.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner prays that the Petition be converted to a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. This whole question has also been considered by this Court in Narinder Singh @ Narinder Bahadur vs. Rajinder Prasad, : 110 (2004) DLT 618. This prayer cannot be acceded to since this Court is not seized with the roster of the Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Needless to state no limitation has been prescribed for a Petition under Article 227 and therefore, the Petitioner does not require liberty from this Court to file such a Petition. In the event that an objection pertaining to latches is raised, the Petitioner would always be in a position to make a Reference to the pendency of this Revision.