J. BANCHCHA BEHERA Vs. DHADI BEHERA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff filed an application under Section 9(1)(a) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act. 1955, alleging that the opposite party No. 1 threatened to dispossess him on 22 -8 -1964. Three months after, an application for amendment was filed praying that the date 22 -8 -1964 was a mistake and that he be permitted to correct it to 22 -8 -1965 The amendment was allowed by the first two authorities, but was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate in revision. Against this order this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed.

(2.) IT is well settled that mere non -mention of the correct date as to when the dispute occurred does not ultimately determine the truth of such an allegation. It is only after evidence is gone into that the truth would be found out as to whether the averment made in the petition was correct or not. In this case in the application for amendment there was an averment that the date 22 -8 -1964 was mentioned by mistake in the original petition and that the Plaintiff should be permitted to change it to 22 -8 -1965. It may ultimately transpire that, such an averment is not true, but that is no reason to refuse the amendment sought to be made on the ground that the first date was given inadvertently. In our view the Additional District Magistrate exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity in refusing to allow the amendment.

(3.) THE writ application is allowed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.