PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SURYA KANT DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. After hearing Mr. A. N. Sinha, learned Counsel for the revisionist and perusing the order for amendment passed on 12th January, 2000 in SCC Suit No. 19 of 1997 by the learned Additional District Judge XVth Court, Kanpiir Nagar and the plaint and the amendment application, it appears that prayer (a) of the amendment application has since been disallowed, while the rest have been allowed. In the prayer (a), the plaintiff had sought to incorporate the date of construction of the building as on November, 1997 and its assessment by the Nagar Palika. That prayer having been refused, the argument of Mr. Sinha to the extent that it is wholly inconsistent and in fact has been sought to introduce a new case, looses its significance. Though, how ever, the question of maintainability of the suit was said to be saved for hearing at the time of disposal. Mr. Sinha contends that this cannot be done. The question of main tainability of the suit in a particular situa tion is a question of law, which can be raised at any point of time provided that pleadings are available in the plaint and the written statement in any manner what soever as provided in Order XL1, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) MR. Rajesh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party on the other hand opposes the contention of MR. Sinha and contends that the amendments have been rightly allowed. This Court sit ting in revision cannot interfere with the order unless there is any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdic tion. In this case, the Court had jurisdic tion to allow the amendment and there having been no illegality or irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction this Court cannot interfere with the order impugned.

(3.) SECTION 111 (g) of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a. 'lease for immovable property determines- " (a ). . . . . (g) by forfeiture; that is to say.- (1) in case the lessee breaks an express condition that, on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter; or (2) in case the lessee renounces the character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title by himself; or. . . . . . . . . . "