SRINIWAS Vs. R.K.AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is di­rected against the order dated 5.2.1999 passed by the Special Judge/Judge Small Cause Courts, Nainital on the ap­plication No. 87-C moved by the de­fendant-in S.C.C. Suit No. 36 of 1988 seeking amendment in the written state­ment to the effect that the property has been sold by the plaintiff. The basis of this averment was a cutting of the newspaper report published in the newspaper in an advertisement column. It is alleged by the revisionist that .news was published on the statement of the respondent/plaintiff. The revi­sionist/defendant did not move any application or did not make any effort to examine the respondent/plaintiff as to whether the plaintiff/respondent had given the statement which was pub­lished in the newspaper. Therefore, the said newspaper report which was pub­lished on advertisement column cannot be read as piece of evidence. Reliance is placed in the case of State of Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Gal and another, reported in A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court, page 1348.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision­ist submitted that the order of the trial court suffers from miscarriage of justice as the question should have been de­cided after allowing the application for amendment and framing of issues. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is misconceived. Before al­lowing the application for amendment the-point was to be decided as to whether the amendment sought should be allowed or the application should be rejected. The said point has been de­cided and the application for amend­ment has been rejected. The issue could be framed after the amendment is allowed and amendment sought could become part of pleading.

(3.) THE trial court has rejected the amendment application that the defend­ant could not prove the sale by the plaintiff.