DHARMSHALA SHAMBHUBARA TRUST Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a plaintiff's petition, who had preferred this writ petition, being aggrieved, as against the impugned judgment of 13.12.2013, which was rendered by the court of Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, in Civil Revision No.01 of 2006. As a consequence of the impugned judgment, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, the revision, which was preferred by the revisionists has been allowed and as a consequence thereto, the amendment preferred by the defendants/respondents was also allowed, permitting them for bringing about the changes in the pleadings, which were raised by them in the written statement. As against these orders, there are three fold arguments, which has been extended by the counsel for the petitioners to assail the impugned revisional court's order allowing the amendment application:- (i) That the defendants/respondents in the amendment application, which was preferred by them, had submitted that their tenancy was flowing from some other person i.e. other than the petitioners. Hence, he submits that this changed stand taken by the defendants/respondents, in the written statement by virtue of the amendment, where the landlordship is a fact, which is being sought to be withdrawn, will amount to be a withdrawal of an admission already made. Hence, the amendment cannot be permitted.

(2.) This may not be a logical reason, to accept the gravamen of argument of the petitioner, because the fact if the nature of amendment, which is being sought to be made by the amendment application, which was preferred by the defendants/respondents herein, in fact they are not withdrawing their status which they have admitted i.e. that to be tenant, whether their tenancy is from the landlordship of the petitioners or one of the petitioners, would still be a subject matter to be adjudicated on merits by the trial court and it cannot be brought within the frame work as if, the nature of amendment sought for was amounting to withdrawal of admission, because it is a question yet to be decided on merits by the court below.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioners had further submitted that the fact of the creation of a tenancy and the existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant, qua the respondents would, be presumed that it was in the knowledge of the defendants and this fact could not have been permitted to be incorporated belatedly by virtue of an amendment. It is settled law by virtue of a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in "Sampat Kumar's case", that a delay in filing the amendment application in itself cannot be a ground to deny an amendment, because even otherwise if the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. is taken into consideration, the language in itself speaks that the amendment could be considered at any stage of proceedings and it has been held that any stage of proceedings, would be inclusive of the proceedings up to the stage of Hon'ble Apex Court even. Hence, it cannot be said that preference of an amendment after filing of written statement was filed belatedly. This ground too is not acceptable by this Court.