RAM CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. KRISHNA PURWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. N. Ray, J. The defendant - revisionist has preferred this revision against the judgment and order passed by the Special judge, E. C. Act, Farrukhabad dated 13. 6. 96 in appeal No. 7 of 1987 in between Krishna Purwar and Ram Chandra Gupta.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the amendment as prayed for in the instant case will not in any way change the plea of the defendant revisionist altogether and that will have no effect upon the merit of the suit. IT has been submitted that the plaintiff-opposite- party filed suit against the revisionist for eviction on the ground that the defendant was defaulter in making payment of rent for more than six years and the defendant made some constructions and made structural changes which caused prejudiced to the plaintiff and also on the ground that the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff because the defendant although asserted that the plaintiff was not the owner but he was the Sarvarakar of the trust property, Dharmarth Pushkar Narayan Shree Krishna. Plaintiff's name is Sri Krishna who asserted to be the landlord of the suit property in his personal capacity. In this amendment petition, the defendant- revisionist wanted to delete some portion from the written statement wherein he denied/challenged the title of the plaintiff and inter alia he asserted that Dharmarth Pushkar Narayan Shree Krishna was the owner and so the suit ought to have been filed on behalf of the trustees through this Sarvarakar who happened to be other than the present plaintiff. IT has been contended that the prayer for amendment was refused by the learned Court with this revision petition.

(3.) DULY considered the submissions of both sides. Defendant filed written statement and he had all the documents and materials with him which were exhibited in his defence in the Court below on accepting them as rent receipts and he wanted to resist plaintiff's claim by denying plaintiff's title but it was held by the learned Court below that plaintiff was the owner-landlord and issues were decided accordingly and both sides were heard at length and the learned Court below decreed the suit and if now amendment application is allowed, the suit is likely to fail because the plaintiff would be deprived to get the decree of eviction under the provisions of S. 20 (2) (f) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972. In the circumstances, I do not think that at such a belated stage this amendment application should be allowed because that plea may completely defeat the plaintiff's case which was considered by the learned Court below taking into account all the evidence as addused by the parties. As such the revision petition fails. The revision application is not admitted and stands rejected. I do not order as to costs. Review rejected. .