Surya Bali Bajpai vs XIVth Additional District Judge,Kanpur Nagar and Others

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 981999 (Annexure4 to the writ petition), whereby respondent No. 2 has rejected the application filed by the defendantpetitioner before the trial Court for amendment in the written statement and against the order of the Revisional Court dated 2652000 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order of the trial Court.

2.1 have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent.

The plaintiffrespondent filed Suit No. 1813 of 1988 in the Court of the then Munsif City, Kanpur Nagar for ejectment of the defendantpetitioner from part of the open land admeasuring 22 feet x 26 feet of premises No. 85/96A, Jhakarkati, Kanpur and for putting him in the actual physical possession of the same on the ground that he was the owner of this property and the defendantpetitioner was its tenant. The petitioner filed his written statement.

The petitioner filed an application for amendment in the written statement by adding two paragraphs 31 and 32 as under:

(a) That after paras 30, 31 that no house No. 85/69A. Jhakarkati Kanpur, is in existence and a disputed land is the part of Arazi No. 223 Minjumla Juhi Khurd, Kanpur, the plaintiff the only owner of house No 85/''69, Jhakarkati, Kanpur. Trust Ram Chandra Ji, Janki Ji, Lakshman Ji and Mahadev Ji is the owner of the land in suit and Sarvarakar of the trust Sri Keshav Narain Mishra has started demanding the possession from the defendant.

(b) That after paras No. 31,32, the plaintiff has no right to demand the possession, damages or any amount of rent from the defendant and suit is liable to be dismissed and not maintainable.

The trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner taking the view that as the petitioner Lau admitted the ownership of the respondent the amendment sought by him shall change the nature of the defence. The petitioner sought for deletion of any paragraph in the written statement. He has only sought to clarify his stand in regard to his aver men is in the written statement. If the petitioner had sought for deletion of any paragraph whereby he had admitted certain facts, it could have been said that the petitioner was withdrawing his averments by amendment as indicated above I do not find that the amendment will change the nature of the plea taken by him.

In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 981999and2652000arequashed. However, the trial Court shall decide the suit expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and a true copy of the writ petition before him by the petitioner. Petition allowed.