Punjab National Bank vs Naresh Kumar Bajaj

B.K. Rathi, J.—The opposite party filed S.C.C. Suit No. 34 of 1995 for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent against the revisionist which is pending in the Court of J.S.C.C. (District Judge), Kanpur Nagar. In the suit, the revisionist moved an application for amendment in the written statement. The said application has been rejected by the trial court by the impugned order dated 7.5.2002. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

I have heard Sri K. L. Grover, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party.

It is contended by Sri K. L. Grover, learned Counsel for the revisionist that the amendment is necessary ; that the proposed amendment is that the opposite party has accepted rent till 30.6.1995 and, therefore, the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel and acquiescence. The other amendment sought is that the Nagar Nigam has realised tax of the building from the revisionist, that the opposite party landlord is liable to pay tax and, therefore, the tax may be adjusted and as the rent has been accepted in the form of the tax, the suit is not maintainable.

Learned Counsel in support of the argument referred to certain decisions. The first is Sant Ram Agarwal Vs. Civil Judge, Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow and others, . In this case, it was observed that the amendment should not be refused on technical ground. However, there is no observation in this judgment to support the argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist.

The other case referred to is Ishwardas v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 551. It was observed by the Apex Court that there is no bar against an appellate court permitting amendment of pleadings so as to enable a party to raise a new plea. All that is necessary is that the appellate court should observe the well known principles subject to which amendments of pleadings are usually granted. It was held that one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment. This decision therefore, does not support the revisionist. On the other hand, it supports, the opposite party.

The other case referred to is Mulk Raj Batra and Others Vs. District Judge, Dehra Dun and Others, . In this case, part of amendment was rejected by the trial court. It was held that order rejecting amendment is erroneous. The finding was recorded by the Apex Court on the basis of the facts and is no help to the revisionist.

The last case referred to is of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Laxmi Prasad v. Smt. Krishna Devi 2002 (1) ARC 505. In this case, the revision was filed before the High Court against the order allowing the amendment. However, considering the fact, it was held that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

After considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that none of the principles mentioned in above cases is of any help to the revisionist. The suit is S.C.C. suit filed in the year, 1995. The evidence of the parties has already been concluded and the revisionist took several adjournments for addressing the arguments. The revisionist prior to the present application for amendment got the plaint amended 2-3 times before. In the application, it is alleged that the rent was accepted till 30.6.1995. There is no reason as to why this amendment was moved in the year 2002. The trial court has observed that continuous attempt of the revisionist is to delay the disposal of the suit.

Considering the circumstances, I find that the amendment is totally mala fide and the sole intention of the revisionist is to delay the disposal of the suit.

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.

The trial court is directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously.