HARCHARANLAL Vs. RAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 115 C.P.C. A suit for eviction was filed on 5th of September, 1991. It is at the stage of evidence. However, recording of evidence has not yet commenced. On the date when the evidence was to be led, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed. By that petition, the plea earlier taken in para 2 of the written statement was sought to be amended. In the written statement, the tenant had admitted that plaintiff Harcharanlal is the landlord. However, in the application under Order 6 Rule 17, a plea has been taken that the landlord is in fact Lachchobai and a further plea has also been taken that the tenancy was in favour of Ramjilal and his brother Om Prakash. This application was allowed by the trial Court. It is against this order passed by the trial Court, on 25th of July, 1994, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that a valuable admission was made in favour of the petitioner and this could not be taken away by seeking amendment in the written statement. This plea is sought to be countered by placing reliance on Panchdeo Narain Shrivastava v. Ku. iyati Sahay and others, AIR 1983 SC 462. The Supreme Court observed that High Court in revision would not be justified in reversing an order passed under Order 6 Rule 17. It was further held by the Supreme Court that the fact that some admission is sought to be withdrawn would also not furnish a ground for this Court to interfere in revision u/s 115 C.P.C. There is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the decision referred to above, it would not be proper to interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The matter is at the stage of evidence. The pleas taken by the respective parties are yet to be gone into. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this revision. It is, accordingly, dismissed.