MANMOHAN SARIN ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of Shri I. S. Mehta. Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 5. 5. 1995 in Suit No. 1036 of 1993. whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petitioner s application under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief may be recapitulated:- " (I) The respondent, a tenant in the premises in suit viz. the first floor of 142 Golf Links. New Delhi filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restoration of the tenanted premises. The respondent claimed in the suit that the petitioner in an illegal manner had forcibly dispossessed the respondent on 15th July, 1992. (ii) Vide order dated 23. 10. 1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, it was directed that the premises in suit would be sealed and kept under lock and key of the registrar of this Court. The suit was also directed to be disposed of within six months. (hi) After completion of the pleadings, the issues in the suit were framed on 28. 1. 1994 and the case was fixed for the respondents/plaintiffs evidence on 7. 2. 1994. However, recording of evidence could not be commenced as the petitioner moved applications under order 6 rule 5 Civil Procedure Code; order 7 rule 14 Civil Procedure Code and another application under Section 151 read with order 18 and order 29 Civil Procedure Code The evidence commenced on 8. 3. 1994 and only cross- examination of two witnesses was completed. The petitioner is stated to have taken repeated adjournments on one ground or the other, culminating in the filing of the belated application under order 6 rule 17 for amendment, which was dismissed by the learned Judge". ( 3 ) THE petitioner in the written statement has sought two amendments. One amendment is to raise the objection that the suit has not been instituted by a duly constituted attorney or an authorised person It is contended by the petitioner that only recently he learnt that Shri B. M. Lall was neither the constituted attorney ofthe plaintiffs/respondents nor was he authorised to engage an advocate. There was no resolution in his favour. There was no resolution in his favour. The second amendment sought is in respect of the objection to the valuation ofthe suit for purposes of court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction The petitioner wishes to amend para 15 of the written statement, wherein earlier there was a simple denial of the corresponding para of the plaint with the averment that the suit is wrongly valued for purposes of relief. The petitioner s case is that the annual rent of the premises was Rs. 26. 400/- and the suit was to be properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at twelve months rent and on which basis the suit should have been filed inthe court of the Civil Judge The respondents, with a view to seek relief from the High Court had over valued the suit without any basis The suit correctly falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge ( 4 ) IT is well settled that amendments that are necessary and relevant for adjudicating the matter in controversy should not be disallowed simply because the same are belated, especially when the other side can be compensated with cost. Amendments have even been allowed in cases where an admission was erroneously made provided there was sufficient explanation for the same. The ultimate objective being to subserve and secure the ends of justice rather than to defeat the same on technical grounds. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently urged that the amendments sought are mala fide with the ulterior object of delaying the prosecution of the suit. Counsel for the respondent has produced in Court a list of dates, the accuracy of which has been confirmed by the counsel forthe petitioner. It is evident that the suit has been inordinately delayed and the apprehension of the respondents in this regard cannot be brushed aside and merits issuance of appropriate directions in this regard. Mr. Lonial appearing forthe petitioner has stated that the petitioner is also anxious for an early disposal of the suit as his property is lying sealed. Counsel forthe respondent finally stated that he would not oppose the amendments but prays for appropriate directions being given by the Court regarding the time frame within which the trial of the suit would be completed. Mr. Lonial has no objection to the same. Counsel forthe respondent finally stated that he would not oppose the amendments but prays for appropriate directions being given by the Court regarding the time frame within which the trial of the suit would be completed. Mr. Lonial has no objection to the same. Counsel for the respondent also stated that he concedes the petitioner s objection with regard to the valuation of the suit falling within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge. Both the parties state that the suit may be transferred to the court of the Civil Judge, within whose pecuniary jurisdiction the suit would fall. The impugned order rejecting the application for amendment is accordingly set aside and the amendment application is allowed. ( 5 ) INTHE peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions are issued as regards the time frame within which the trial of the suit would be completed. The time frame has been fixed after ascertaining the requirements from the respective counsels. (i) The learned Additional District Judge before whom the case is pending would send the case file of Suit No. 1036 of 1993 titled M/s. Batliboi and Co. Limited Vs. Shri N. K. Verma to the Senior Civil Judge for assigning it to an appropriate court of Civil Judge. Parties would appear before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge on 5th August. 1995. (ii) , The-petitioner would file the amended written statement within a week ofthe appearance before the Civil Judge to whom the case is assigned. The respondent would file replication within a week thereafter (iii) The learned Civil Judge would permit the respondents/ plaintiffs to lead further evidence on any additional issue that is framed pursuant to the amended pleadings. The learned Civil Judge would give two dates to the plaintiffs/respondents preferably in the month of August. 1995 to complete the plaintiffs/respondents evidence. The cross-examination by the petitioner/defendant of the plaintiffs/respondents witnesses would be completed within three dates to be given preferably in the month of September. 1995. (iv) The petitioner/defendant would complete his. evidence within three dates and by 30th of November. 1995. The trial court would thereafter hear the arguments and proceed to judgment as expeditiously as possible. ( 6 ) THE revision petition is allowed. The petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1995. (iv) The petitioner/defendant would complete his. evidence within three dates and by 30th of November. 1995. The trial court would thereafter hear the arguments and proceed to judgment as expeditiously as possible. ( 6 ) THE revision petition is allowed. The petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- as costs to the Indian Council for Legal Aid and Advice Board, Chamber No. 3, Lawyers Chamber, Delhi High Court. New Delhi and Rs. 1500 to the respondent.