JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. – Heard Sri. Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. This revision u/s 25 of the PSCC Act is preferred against the order dated 31.5.2016 passed by JCC/Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act in S.C. Suit No. 19 of 2008, rejecting an amendment application (paper no. 85C) filed by the defendant. 3. The revisionist is a tenant and is facing an eviction suit filed in the year 2008 on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent etc. After closure of plaintiff's evidence in the year 2010, the revisionist had filed an acknowledgement, bearing the endorsement of receipt of the statutory notice. The applicant filed an amendment application to the effect that in paragraph-13 of the existing written statement, it be added that he had not received any quit notice dated 2.11.2007 either by him or by his family members and that the postman concerned did not come at his office or residence between 2.11.2007 to 18.11.2007. The application was objected on the ground that the same is malafidely motivated with a view to further delay the pending trial. The court below vide order impugned dated 31.5.2016 rejected the amendment application, primarily on the ground that as the fact, which was sought to be introduced by way of proposed amendment was already within the knowledge of the tenant/opposite party, same was barred by the proviso appended to Order-VI Rule 17 CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the view taken by the court below is not sustainable in law, inasmuch as once the document was filed by the landlord/opposite party, he had indivisible right to rebut the same, but subject to the filing in the proposed additional written statement by way of amendment. 5. The plaintiff-opposite party alleges in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the plaint that a registered quit notice dated 2.11.2007 was sent to the revisionist/tenant, but the same was returned with the collusive endorsement of the postman concerned and subsequently on 6.2.2008, a fresh registered quit notice was again sent, which stood served on 16.2.2008. The contents of the said averments of the plaint were denied in the written statement. The contents of the said averments of the plaint were denied in the written statement. Merely, because the opposite party/landlord filed the A.D, along with endorsement of the receipt of the quit notice that by itself would not give any right to the revisionist/tenant to claim an amendment in the written statement that no notice was served upon him or his family member, as the plea denial of service of notice is already raised in the existing written statement. Moreover, whether the notice was served or not is an issue, which relates to domain of evidence. 6. The order impugned does not suffer from any illegality/impropriety. 7. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.