PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SURYA KANT DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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, Kanpur Nagar and the plaint and the amendment application. It appears that the 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, loses its significance. Though, however, 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 maintainability of the suit in a particular situations, 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 whatsoever as provided in Order XLI, 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, sitting in revision, cannot interfere with the order unless there is any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of Jurisdiction. In this case, the Court had jurisdiction 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.) So far as the other grounds on other amendments which have since been allowed are concerned, the contention of Mr. Sinha is that the order can also not be passed allowing the same since it is a question of possession and conversion of the suit into one for declaration of title. As such, the amendments having the effect of changing the nature and character of the suit, ought not have been allowed.