Kanhai Lal vs Keshar Devi

Ram Janam Singh, Member.

This revision has been filed by Kanhai Lal against the order dated 31101998 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in Revision No. 259/199/97 which had been filed against the order dated 751997 passed by trial Court in suit No. 20 under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that Smt. Keshar Devi instituted a suit against Kanhai Lal and others. The proceeded. Kanhai Lal filed written statement denying the right and title of the plaintiff on various grounds. On 751997 Kanhai Lal moved an application seeking amendment in the written statement. By the order dated 751997 the trial Court rejected this application. Feeling aggrieved by the order Kanhai Lal filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner which was also dismissed on 31101998. Hence the present revision.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist has argued that the Courts below have exercised jurisdiction with material illegality and with substantial irregularity. He argued that by refusing to amend the written statement the learned trial Court has shut the door of justice and disallowed the defendant to substantiate the pleas which were legal. According to him, the revision deserves to be allowed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the revisionist.

There is no substance in the argument put forward by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. The trial Court passed order dated 751997 after considering the material on record. The learned Additional Commissioner rightly observed that it is still open to the parties to produce their evidence before the Court concerned. The impugned order did not amount to a suit or proceeding decided. No revision is entertainable against such an order. In the circumstances of the case I am of the view that the learned trial Court was not wrong in rejecting the application of the revisionist. The learned Additional Commissioner has rightly dismissed the revision.

Revision is not fit for admission and is accordingly dismissed.

Revision dismissed.