Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 930 (ALL)

Sara Begum v. Ghanshyam Lakshkar

2016-03-14

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2016
JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed praying for writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.11.2015 rejecting the amendment application of the defendands-petitioners and the order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Jhansi in R.C.A. No. 19 of 2012 as well as the order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the same Court rejecting the application No.32 C for additional evidence. 2. Learned counsel for the defendands-petitioners submits that the amendment application as well as the application for additional evidence have been wrongly rejected by the Court below in breach of settled principles of law that the court should be liberal to allow the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. He submits that the only amendment sought was that the plaintiff-landlord/respondent is registered as an Advocate with the U.P. Bar Council and evidence in that regard was filed as additional evidence. In support of his submission, he relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh A.I.R. 2006 SC 2832 (para 7). 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that although the plaintiff was enrolled as an Advocate but infact he is not practising and has not yet appeared even in a single case nor has filed vakalatnama in any case before any court of law. He submits that mere enrollment does not mean that plaintiff is a practising advocate. He further submits that the fact was very well known to the defendants-petitioners from the very beginning that the plaintiff-respondent is not practising as an advocate but is an unemployed youth and, therefore, the amendment application as well as application for additional evidence both were fully misconceived and consequently, the same were lawfully rejected by the courts below. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is wholly undisputed that the plaintiff-respondent has moved a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, No. 13 of 1972 which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court vide order dated 20.7.2012. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is wholly undisputed that the plaintiff-respondent has moved a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, No. 13 of 1972 which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court vide order dated 20.7.2012. It is also undisputed that the release application was moved by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that he is unemployed and needs the tenanted premises in question for personal use so as to carry on business to earn livelihood. 7. It was not disclosed by the plaintiff-respondent either before the prescribed authority or during the course of pendency of the appeal before the appellate court that he has got himself enrolled as an advocate. The amendment as well as additional evidence was sought to be filed only to the effect that the plaintiff is enrolled as an Advocate. There was no evidence on record to show that the defendants-petitioners were aware of the fact that the plaintiff-respondent is enrolled as an Advocate. Under the circumstances, the condition as provided under the proviso Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. were fully complied with by the petitioners and consequently the amendment application as well as application for additional evidence should not have been rejected by the appellate court. 8. It is settled law that Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of proceedings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. Neither any finding has been recorded nor any material has been brought on record by the plaintiff-respondent that the amendment sought by the defendants-petitioners may cause serious injustice or irreparable loss to him. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders dated 27.11.2015 and 2.2.2016 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Jhansi in R.C.A. No. 19 of 2012 can not be sustained and are hereby set aside. The Court below is directed to pass an order afresh in accordance with law on the amendment application and the application for additional evidence being paper No.29 C(1) and 32C, in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted by the courts below to the parties in the appeal. 9. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted by the courts below to the parties in the appeal. 9. In result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed to the extent indicated above.