Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 586 (ALL)

Ali Sher v. Jama Masjid Phooswali

2010-02-15

KRISHNA MURARI

body2010
JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Azim Ahmad Kazmi for respondents. 2. Respondent-plaintiff filed JSCC Suit No. 3 of 2007 for arrears of rent and ejectment. The defendant-applicant in response to the notice put in appearance and filed his written statement on 17.09.2007. After about 2 and 1/2 years of the filing of the written statement, an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed by the applicant seeking amendment in his written statement. Courts below vide impugned order dated 04.01.2010 dismissed the amendment application. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the courts below has rejected the amendment application only on the ground that in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, the amendment cannot be permitted because the trial has commenced, whereas as a matter of fact, the trial has not commenced and only the evidence in the form of affidavit has been filed. 4. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar & Anr., 2009 All. C.J. 1623. 5. In reply, it has been submitted that amendment sought were totally unnecessary and the application has been moved with the sole intention to delay the disposal of the suit, inasmuch as the facts sought to be brought on record by way of amendment were already there in the written statement. 6. I have considered the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is no doubt correct that trial court has rejected the application for amendment only on the ground that it is hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. Further the amendment as well as the written statement has been examined by me. 7. A perusal of the same goes to show that crux of the amendment application is the suit for recovery of rent beyond three years is barred by limitation. It is only this fact which has been tried to be brought on record by way of amendment couched in different words in the entire application. A perusal of the written statement goes to show that the fact has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 14 of the written statement. It is only this fact which has been tried to be brought on record by way of amendment couched in different words in the entire application. A perusal of the written statement goes to show that the fact has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 14 of the written statement. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the amendment was only clarificatory in nature. 8. Be that as it may, since from a perusal of the entire record, this Court finds that the amendment was not at all necessary and the facts sought to be brought by way of amendment are already there in the written statement, no illegality appears to have been committed by the courts below in rejecting the application, may be on different grounds. 9. In view of above, the civil revision is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed.