HARI SINGH Vs. MAHAVEER SABHA BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.

(2.) THIS revision challenges the order dated 10-8-2006 whereby, petitioner's prayer of amendment in the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 C. P. C. has been dismissed.

(3.) IT has been admitted in the pleadings of the revisionist- defendant that Mahaveer Sabha is the plaintiff and the owner of the property from which the building in question was taken on rent by him. One Mr. Balwant Singh was looking after the affairs of the Mahaveer Sabha in his capacity as Manager of the entire property. By virtue of the proposed amendment the defendant- applicant is trying to get rid of the admission of relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. This cannot be legally possible for the Court to permit such amendment. Otherwise also there is unreasonable delay in moving this petition because the plaintiffs evidence in the case, as observed in the impugned order itself, was closed way back in the year 2002. The defendant has not proceed to record his evidence before the trial Court. Now at this belated stage in the year 2006 he is coming with this proposed amendment. The proviso attached to Order VI Rule 17 C. P. C. prohibits bringing such amendment in the pleadings after the commencement of the trial. Therefore, also the amendment as had been sought by the petitioner appears to have been rightly rejected by the Court below. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or procedural error as to call for an interference against the same in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.