RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. SMT. RAGINI SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Gupta for the revisionist and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite party. This revision is proposed to be disposed of at the admission stage.

(2.) THE revision is directed against an order of judge, Small Causes Court, Dehradun rejecting an application for amendment in the written statement sought by the defendant revisionist. The said application was rejected on the ground that it was nothing but a move to delay disposal of the suit and that the proposed amendment cannot be allowed to permit the defendant to resile from the previous admission and lastly that the proposed amendment is not essential for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the SCC suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist, however, contended that the issue whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the building or not will not cover the controversy whether the building is situate outside the municipal limits of Dehradun and if so what will be its effect on the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Since the proposed amendment in the written statement has been refused by the trial court and has not been permitted in the revision, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the trial court shall frame an issue upon the allegations made in para. 3 of the plaint and as denied in para. 3 of the written statement whether the disputed, building is situate outside the municipal limits of Dehradun and if so, its effect on the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. With the above observations, the revision is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the issue so framed shall be decided in accordance with law.