RAJ KUMAR Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D.C. Mathur, Petitioner's Counsel. It appears that during the pendency of proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, an application for amendment was moved from the side of the landlord and the same was allowed. Against the said order, the petitioner filed revision before respondent No. 2 which has been dismissed by the impugned order as legally not maintainable.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued before me that even if the revision filed before respondent No. 2 was not maintainable under Section 18 of the Act, the Court below should have exercised powers conferred on it under Section 115, C.P.C. This argument has no substance in view of well settled position of law. It has been held in the case of Vijay Singh v. Vth Additional District Judge and others, 1998 (33) ALR 422, that order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting application for amendment in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) is neither reviseable under Section 18 of the Act nor under Section 115, C.P.C. Similar view was expressed in the case of Smt. Surjit Kaur v. IVth Addl. District Judge, Bulandhahr, 1983 (1) ARC 202 and Smt. Shakuntla Devi v. IVth Additional District Judge, Meerut : 1981 (7) ALR 396. In the decision of Kalavati Raja v. IInd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, 1983 (9) ALR 87 (Sum.) :, 1983 (1) ARC 740, it was held that Prescribed Authority is not a Civil Court. A plain reading of the provisions of the Act should show that Section 115, C.P.C. has not been applicable to the proceedings under the Act either by Section 34(1) or by means of Rule 22. Section 141 C.P.C. also cannot be pressed into service as the Prescribed Authority while exercising powers in the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) does not act as a Court of civil jurisdiction but it acts only as a persona designata. The view taken by the lower Revisional Court is therefore, according to law and needs no interference. Even otherwise also the amendment which has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority does not cause any injustice to the petitioner and this writ petition appears to have been filed merely to delay the proceedings.