MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. RAMA RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri Santosh Kumar Kesarwani, Advocate holding brief of Sri Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite parties.

(2.) Present revision has been filed seeking following relief:

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondents have filed S.C.C. Case No. 34 of 2013 in which revisionist has filed written statement on 5/2/2014 admitting the tenancy. After change of counsel, it was found that documents so annexed alongwith written statement is having a 'license deed', but due to typographical error, it is mentioned as 'tenant'. He next submitted that after change of counsel, amendment application dtd. 23/3/2022 has been moved under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for substitution of word, 'licensee' in place of word, 'tenant' which was rejected on the ground that first of all any admission made in written statement cannot be withdrawn. Secondly; change of counsel cannot be a ground to allow amendment application at a very belated stage. Further, condition of due diligence has also not been satisfied. He firmly submitted that Apex Court has categorically held that a liberal view is required to be taken while deciding amendment application. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another; 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 864.