MANJU CHAURASIA Vs. RAJIV KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Bhupesh Kandpal, the learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri Neeraj Garg, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The applicant is the landlord who has filed a suit for eviction of the opposite party under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. During the pendency of the proceeding, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. was filed to amend the plaint. It was contended that an error had crept in the plaint with regard to the municipal number of the property in dispute and that an additional fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, namely, that the defendant had filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act claiming himself to be the owner of the property instead of being a tenant. Consequently, the plaintiff prayed for the deletion of paragraph 1 and 2 of the plaint and substituting it by a fresh paragraph. The plaintiff also prayed for the addition of paragraph 5A and for the deletion of the schedule of the property at the end of the plaint by substituting it with a fresh schedule of the property. For ready reference, the amendment sought by the plaintiff is quoted hereunder:

(3.) The said application was opposed by the defendant. The trial court, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 16/12/2009 rejecting the application for amendment on the ground that there had been a considerable delay in moving the amendment application and, that the amendment was barred by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and, that the applicant had not been able to explain as to why the said amendment could not be moved earlier. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the rejection of the application, has filed the present revision.