VEENA MATHUR Vs. ANIL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revisional application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act challenging an order dated 31.7.1996 recorded by the Court of Small Causes, Bareilly (3rd Addl. District Judge) in SCC Suit No. 1 of 1993. By the impugned order the learned Judge had allowed a prayer to implead defendant No. 2 on the prayer of the plaintiff. The aggrieved defendant No. 1 has preferred the present application.

(2.) THE suit was originally filed against the defendant No. 1 alone by the four plaintiffs for her eviction from a premises wherein she was described as a tenant. On her appearance defendant No. 1 took up a plea that she was not the tenant in the premises, rather the Harrow Preparatory School, Rampur Gardens, Civil Lines, Bareilly, was the tenant and she, being the Manager of the school, was living under an allotment from the school. Only thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of the pleading only to incorporate the name of the Harrow Preparatory School, as defendant No. 1. This prayer was allowed after hearing both the existing parties by the order now impugned.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submitted that for a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, any error of law could be corrected by the High Court. Assuming this submission to be true, it must be shown that there was an error of law. It cannot be conceded that mere wrong mention of Order VI, Rule 17 is such an error of law which requires interference when in fact the powers for impleadment lay with the court below and was exercised, albeit in the name of exercise of another power. I find no reason to interfere with the order.