KAILASH KUMARI Vs. HANUMANJI MAHARAJ VIRAJMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant of the shop in dispute owned by the respondent no.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 15th May, 2013, passed by the Additional District Judge, Hathras, rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaunpur, dated 27th March, 2009, by which he has rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement.

(2.) THE respondent no.1 filed a suit for eviction, interalia, on the ground that the petitioner has sublet the shop in dispute; damaged the shop; and has not paid any rent. The suit was filed in the year 1992 and has been registered as SCC Suit No. 28 of 1992. The petitioner filed the written statement on 16.9.1993. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent moved an amendment application seeking an amendment in the plaint, which has been allowed. Amended, paragraph no. 1, is as follows .........[vernacular ommited text]........... added by way of amendment and further paragraph 8-A has been inserted. The amendment application has been allowed after hearing the petitioner.

(3.) THE said amendment application has been rejected by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaunpur by the order dated 27.3.2009 on the ground that no case has been made out that the fact which the petitioner-respondent wants to incorporate by way of amendment in the written statement was not within his knowledge earlier and he failed to show any ground why he could not be able to bring said amendment earlier. The case is at the last stage, therefore, the amendment application is being rejected. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, the petitioner filed the revision, which has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 15th May, 2013 with the cost of Rs.5,000/= The revisional court has held that in the original written statement, it has not been stated that the plaintiff is not a trust. So far as the claim that the shop cannot be let out at the rent of Rs.3,000/= per month is concerned, it is a matter of evidence. It has further been observed that the evidences of the plaintiff and the defendant are closed and the case is at the final stage, therefore, the amendment sought cannot be allowed.