Sikandar vs Additional District Judge Ct. No. 4 and Another

Hon''ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 24th February, 2012 by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendments in the written statement has been rejected.

It transpires from the records of the writ petition that SCC Suit No.6 of 1990 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.2 against the defendant-petitioner for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The Suit was decreed on 28th August, 2010. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-petitioner filed a Revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 which was registered as Revision No.25 of 2010. After a prolonged hearing, the Revisional Court fixed 23rd February, 2010 for delivery of judgment but on this date, the revisionist moved an application for making amendments in the written statement. This amendment application dated 23rd February, 2010 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24th February, 2012 and the Court has fixed 27th February, 2012 for further arguments.

It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court committed an illegality in rejecting the amendment application as what was sought to be inserted in the written statement was that the Suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff was a minor at the time the notice dated 23rd October, 1984 for terminating the tenancy was issued and that the Suit was instituted only on behalf of one owner.

Sri Kautilya, Learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference by the Court.

The Revisional Court has given good and cogent reasons for rejecting the amendment application. The Suit remained pending for a long period of 22 years, during which time the petitioner did not move any application. It is only when the Revision had been heard and the date has been fixed for delivery of judgment that the Revisionist moved an application for incorporating amendment in the written statement. No good reason has been given for explaining the inordinate delay in filing the amendment application and even otherwise, the Revisional Court has observed that the legal plea can be raised at the time of hearing of the Revision.

The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner has succeeded in delaying the delivery of judgment. The Revisional Court shall make all endeavours to decide the Revision expeditiously.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.