Gopal Pandey vs District Judge,Ballia and Others

R. H. Zaidi, J.—Petitioner by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the validity of the order dated 8.5.1985 contained in AnnexureIV to the writ petition, whereby the Distt, Judge, Ballia has dismissed the revision filed by petitioner as not maintainable.

It appears that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendantsrespondents No. 3 to 5 from interferring into his possession over the land in dispute and from raising any construction on the same. Petitioner applied for amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17, CP.C. but his application was rejected by the trial court (VIII Addl. Munsif) vide his order dated 24.4.85. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner preferred a civil revision No. 112 of 1995 under Section 115, C.P.C. The learned Dist. Judge dismissed the said revision as not maintainable by the impugned order dated 8.5.1985. The present petition as stated above has been filed praying for a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the said order.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Distt. Judge is manifestly erroneous and illegal, inasmuch as the order rejecting or allowing the amendment application is always revisable under Section 115, C.P.C. He has placed reliance upon the decision in Rama Shanker Tiwari v. Mahdeo and others, 1968 AWR 103, wherein it has been held by a Full Bench of this Court that an order passed under Order VI, Rule 17, CP.C. either allowing an amendment or refusing to allow the same is a ''case decided'' within the meaning of expression used under Section 115, C.P.C. and the same is revisable.

The learned Distt. Judge was not right in observing that:

"The repeated pronouncements of the Hon''ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad, say that the revisions are not maintainable against allowing or rejecting the amendment application."

To my knowledge at present, there is no binding pronouncement or authority of this Court or of Hon''ble Supreme Court laying down the law that the order of allowing or rejecting the amendment application is not revisable. The learned Distt. Judge has committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record in holding to the contrary, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 851985 AnnexureIV to the writ petition is quashed. No order as to costs.