Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1690 (ALL)

Krishna Kumar Sharma v. Bulakhi Das

2015-07-01

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. This petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the order dated 5 May 2015 whereby, the revisional Court has rejected the application seeking amendment in the written statement at the revisional stage. 2. It transpires from the record that the SCC Suit No. 7 of 2008 was instituted against the applicant by the plaintiff respondent, which was decreed by the Judge, Small Causes by judgment dated 24 May 2013. In the revision filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, the defendant has moved an application 25 Ga seeking amendment in the written statement. By means of the amendment application the applicant sought to incorporate a plea to the effect that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was in deposit as advance money with the plaintiff and the same is liable to be adjusted against the arrears of rent. 3. The revisional Court by the impugned order dated 5 May 2015 has rejected the amendment application holding that admittedly the plea now sought to be raised was in the knowledge of the applicant and such plea ought to have been raised at the trial stage. It has also been held that even if such plea is accepted, the same would be considered at the stage of final judgment while determining the claim of the plaintiff regarding the arrears of rent. With these findings, the revisional Court has come to the conclusion that the amendment sought is not necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 4. By Act No. 22 of 2002, Order 6, Rule 17 has been amended and it has now been provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In the instant case, as held by the revisional Court, the factum of money having been deposited in advance with the plaintiff landlord was very much in the knowledge of the applicant but despite that, no plea was raised before the Trial Court. In my opinion, the revisional Court had, therefore, rightly rejected the amendment application. 5. In the instant case, as held by the revisional Court, the factum of money having been deposited in advance with the plaintiff landlord was very much in the knowledge of the applicant but despite that, no plea was raised before the Trial Court. In my opinion, the revisional Court had, therefore, rightly rejected the amendment application. 5. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that the order impugned can not be said to be an order passed without jurisdiction nor it had occasioned any failure of justice, so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.