LAXMI KANT TRIPATHI Vs. KARUNA SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAXMI Kant Tripathi and others have filed this revision under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act against the judgment dated 17-6-2003 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the present revisionist moved an application for the amendment to amend the written statement on the ground that some typing mistake is there. In place of Order IX Rule 11, Order VI, Rule 17 should be allowed to be amended. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties arrived at a conclusion that the amendment sought is well founded and he is accordingly allowned the amendment. Aggrieved by this order Karuna Shanker and others have preferred a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division. The learned Additional Commissioner set aside the order of the learned trial Court allowed the revision on the ground that the issues were framed hence the amendment should not have been allowed. Aggrieved by this order the present revision has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist cited three pronouncements of different Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 787 of 2001 has held that the Court should not adopt typer technical approach in consideration the amendment application. It should normally be allowed to uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. In other pronouncement of Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2002 decided on 9-1-2002 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held that if the amendment has been allowed by subordinate Court then superior Court should not interfere in such orders. In Civil Revision No. 359 of 1999 dated 27-9-99 the Hon'ble High Court has held that the amendment in pleading-Either allowed or rejected. Matter relate to discretion of the Court, High Court not to interfere with the discretion. On the basis of these pronouncements the learned Counsel argued that once the discretion exercised by the trial Court the revisional Court had no jurisdiction to interfere. Keeping in view the pronouncement of the superior Courts.