Virendra Bali vs Special Judge (Antl Corruption)/Additional District Judge,Barellly and Another

Sudhir Narain, J.—The landlordrespondent filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is defaulter in the payment of rent and taxes etc. The petitioner contested the suit denying the allegation made by the plaintiffrespondent. The Judge Small Causes Court decreed the suit on the finding that the petitioner has committed default in payment of arrears of rent. The petitioner preferred revision against the said order. During the pendency of revision he filed an application for amendment of written statement taking two legal pleas referred to in paragraphs 22A to 22F in the written statement. This amendment application was allowed on 751999. The petitioner subsequently filed an application that additional issues be framed and either such issues may be remitted or the case may be remanded. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 9121999.

Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that once the amendment application was allowed, it was incumbent upon the revisional Court to have framed the issues and decide the matter. The Court had allowed the amendment application on the legal pleas which were by the petitioner. The amendments which were allowed are in respect of paragraphs 22A to 22F. They read as under:

�Para No. 22A. That the present suit is hit and barred by Section 15 read with schedule II of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.

Para No. 22B. That this Hon''ble Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the present suit.

Para No. 22C. That the suit is hit and barred for want of prerequisite ingredients and the mandatory provisions of law as required by the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the present suit as such is not legally maintainable and this Hon''ble Court has no jurisdiction to exercise any jurisdiction and the grant any such relief as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint of the present suit. The present suit is bad in view of the mandatory provisions of law contained under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.

Para No. 22D. That the present suit is also hit and barred by Sections 11,13 and 16 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1992.

Para No. 22E. That this Hon''ble Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to try the present suit.

Para No. 22F. That the suit is also hit and barred for want of legal and valid notice under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as Section 106of the Transfer ofProperty Act.�

These are all legal pleas and can be decided by the revisional Court itself. It is not necessary for these legal pleas the revisional Court should frame additional issues and remit the issue to the Judge Small Causes Court and secondly it is not necessary in Small Cause Court suit to frame issues.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision in Writ Petition No. 27622 of 1998, Sri Khalique Ahmad Siddiqui v. The VI Additional District Judge, Bareilly and others, where a regular suit was decreed for specific performance on a First Appeal being filed, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed, the appellate court allowed the amendment application and framed five additional issues and one of them was on question of fact and in those circumstances the court directed the parties to lead evidence and directed to refer issue No. 5 framed him to the court below under Order XLI, Rule 25 of Code of Civil Procedure and to require the trial Court to decide such issues. This case has application to the facts of the present case.

This is a Small Cause Court Suit. The revisional Court could not have been permitted amendment of the written statement at the revisional stage on a question of fact. The revisional Court, in tact, has not permitted any party to raise any question of facts but on legal pleas.

In view of the above I do not find it is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.