MADHU GUPTA Vs. SATISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision has been filed questioning the validity of the order dated 24. 10. 2008 passed by the Additional District Court No. 5 rejecting amendment application in JCC Suit No. 2 of 2006 and order dated 25. 11. 2008 rejecting review application moved against the same. Brief background of the proceedings are that JCC Suit No. 2 of 2006 had been filed for arrears of rent and ejectment. In the said suit, written statement had been filed on 27. 4. 2006. In the said suit revisionist moved amendment application on 4. 10. 2008, said amendment application was rejected on 24. 10. 2008. Against the same review application was moved and said review application has been rejected on 25. 11. 2008.

(2.) SRI V. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the validity of the said order rejecting amendment application primarily on the question that in JCC Suit No. 4 of 2006 and JCC Suit No. 5 of 2006 on similar nature, amendment application had been allowed and as such amendment application moved on behalf of the revisionist also ought to have been allowed and as such present civil revision is liable to be allowed.

(3.) IN the present case order dated 24. 10. 2008 has been perused. Order dated 24. 10. 2008 specifically takes note of the fact that in the present case since last two years directives have been on going and deliberately and intentionally witnesses were not being examined and the matter was being delayed on one pretext or other. JCC Court has categorically denied that amendment application is also motivated one to delay the proceeding. In the present case JCC court has clearly mentioned that whatever evidence has been sought to be adduced on record, as far as evidence are concerned, qua the same, it is not at all required to be pleaded. Once factual position is that J. C. C. Court has categorically recorded findings that amendment application is motivated one to delay the proceeding, then clearly it is malafide motive on the part of the revisionist, as part of dilatory part. Coupled with this also categorical mention has been made that evidence are not to be concluded in the present case and whatever averments have been sought to be are in the shape of evidence and can be very well lead the evidence, amendment is not at all required.