(1.) Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant -applicant in the present SCC Revision under Section 25 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act challenging an order dated 23 -3 -2002 passed on an amendment application paper No. 35 -Ka by Additional District Judge, Agra (Court No. 15) in SCC Case No. 22 of 1999 (Hari Bhagwan Bansal v. Vinai Kumar Jain and others) pending in the aforesaid Court whereby the Court below allowed amendment in the plaint, as per amendment application paper No. 35 -Ka.
(2.) AFTER hearing the parties the Court below has passed an elaborate order and given reasons for allowing the amendment, apart from giving reference of various judgments of this Court as well as that of apex Court. It is now well settled that amendments should be allowed. I do not find any ground in the revision before this Court that the order allowing the amendment is mala fide. The order allowing the amendment is fully justified as also reported in the case of AIR 1969 Supreme Court page 1267. However, there is no merit in the present revision. However, I am of the opinion that amendment having been sought in the plaint after two years has certainly caused inconvenience to the defendant and granting amendment on payment of Rs. 100 only is without basis or justification apart from being arbitrary. No inquiry or investigation is required to assess as to how much money time or energy was wasted in contesting the case before the amendment was allowed. Considering the same, I assess that defendant applicant will be suitably compensated, if amendment is allowed on payment of Rs. One thousand. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff -opposite party No. 1 has fairly conceded to the above proposition.
(3.) THE revision stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above.