YOGISH TRIPATHI IN RE: RAMDEO TRIPATHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Vs. MUNNI LAL BHAGWATI PRASAD DHARAMSHALA TRUST AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Qamar Ahmad, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Jaspreet Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the opposite parties on the application for amendment of the writ petition. The petitioner has moved the present application for amendment to induct the following ground as well as the prayer:--

(2.) Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.3.1981, passed by the Small Causes Court, Lucknow whereby the suit of the opposite parties has been decreed for eviction of the petitioner as well as the order dated 15.4.1983, passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Lucknow, whereby the decree passed by the Court below has been confirmed with some modification in the rate of mesne profits. Upon perusal of the record it appears that not once but several times the writ petition has been dismissed. In default which shows the conduct of the petitioner that he is not interested to pursue the writ petition. Through the proposed amendment the petitioner has tried to raise the question on the proceeding of the Small Causes Courts, whereas he never raised such a plea either before the Small Causes Court or before the Revisional Court, whereas the matter is pending since 1981. The relief sought through the proposed amendment has no concern with the merit of the case, but it appears that just to keep linger on the matter, he has moved the application for amendment. Accordingly he is still not interested to get disposed of the matter finally. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others, 2009 10 SCC 84 has laid down the guidelines for consideration of the applications for amendment in paragraph 63 of the judgment, which, is reproduced hereunder:--

(3.) After going through the facts and circumstances of the case as well as proposed amendment I am of the view that the proposed amendment does not come in any of the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the application for amendment and the same is rejected. List the writ petition for hearing.