Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 188 (ALL)

Vijay Pal Sharma v. Kalpana Bhardwaj

2015-01-29

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2015
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri D.R.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. 2. This is a revision against the order of the trial court in SCC Suit No.1 of 2013 by which the amendment sought in the plaint under O.6R.17 CPC has been allowed.The amendment which has been sought in para 12 of the suit is with regard to the valuation of the suit calculated at Rs.5,820/- which has been bifurcated in three portions out of which Rs.43,200/- is the arrears of rent for three years , Rs.600/- is for expenses of notice and Rs.14,400/- is damages of one year of rent. Totaling the aforesaid amounts, it comes to Rs.58,200/- whereas in para 12 while mentioning the valuation of the suit it has been mentioned as Rs.5,820/- whereas according to the fraction given in the same paragraph it ought to have been Rs.58,200/-. Therefore, it appears that while mentioning the figure of Rs.58,200/- one zero has been left out. 3. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that Section 20 Sub clause (4) of the U.P.Urban Buildingsv(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the suit for eviction and arrears of rent would fail the moment , the arrears of rent are paid. Considering the amount mentioned as correct, the same has been paid and now by amendment one more zero is sought to be added which is not permissible under law. The second amendment that has been sought is with regard to the house tax and water tax. Although the same was claimed but the percentage was not mentioned which has now been mentioned as 13%. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.The amendment sought does appear to be genuine, proper and bonafide as in para 12 according to the figures mentioned in the said paragraph the total amount would be calculated to Rs.58,200/- whereas apparently by typographical error one zero has been left and, therefore, the figure has become Rs.5820/- whereas it ought to have been Rs.58,200/-. Similarly, although house tax and water tax etc. has been claimed but the percentage of the same has not been claimed which has now been claimed at 13% which is also a bona fide mistake and, therefore, the trial court in allowing the amendment has not committed any error. Similarly, although house tax and water tax etc. has been claimed but the percentage of the same has not been claimed which has now been claimed at 13% which is also a bona fide mistake and, therefore, the trial court in allowing the amendment has not committed any error. Accordingly, the revision does not merit any further consideration by this Court. The revision is without any merit and is dismissed.