ORDER : Manish Mathur, J. 1. Heard Sri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate who has filed his power on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 3. The power is taken on record. It is admitted between learned counsel for parties that opposite parties 2 and 4, though not served, are merely proforma for the purposes of adjudication of present petition which may be heard finally without notices being served upon them. However, it is a relevant fact that earlier vide order dated 26.08.2019, notices had been issued to the said opposite parties and office report dated 04.10.2019 indicates that undelivered notices have not yet been received back indicating service of notice upon opposite parties 2 and 4. However, in terms of explanation to Rule 12 Chapter VIII of the Rules of this Court, service of notices upon opposite parties 2 to 4 is deemed sufficient. 2. Learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 3 states that he is waving his right to file counter affidavit and that the petition may be disposed of on basis of material on record. Due to such statement, the petition is being decided finally at admission stage itself with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by Additional District Judge (PC Act-I), Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014 (Tarun Kumar Srivastava v. Gur Bux Singh and others) whereby Application No. A-146 seeking amendment in the memorandum of appeal has been rejected. 4. As per averments made in the petition, the plaintiffs-opposite parties 1 to 3 instituted Regular Suit No. 56 of 2009 (Gurbux Singh & others v. Smt. Neeta Dua and another) against opposite party no. 4 and the petitioner who were defendants in the said suit, which was filed seeking relief of possession and damages in relation to some property situate at Aishbagh, Lucknow. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 whereafter Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014 (Tarun Kumar Srivastava v. Gur Bux Singh and others) was filed. 5. It has been stated that earlier another Regular Suit No. 222/2002 (M/s. Lala Timber Traders v. Guru Bux Singh) seeking the relief of permanent injunction with regard to the same property in question. 5. It has been stated that earlier another Regular Suit No. 222/2002 (M/s. Lala Timber Traders v. Guru Bux Singh) seeking the relief of permanent injunction with regard to the same property in question. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014, i.e. after the judgment and decree passed in Regular Suit No. 56 of 2009. 6. It has been stated that due to the subsequent development, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. in Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014 bringing on record the details of Regular Suit No. 222/2002 along with judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was allowed by means of an order dated 02.05.2018, which became final. 7. Subsequent to allowing of application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., the petitioner filed an application for amendment of memorandum of appeal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014. The same has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 08.07.2019. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner challenging the reasoning indicated in the impugned order submitted that once application under (sic Order) 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was allowed and became final, the application seeking to amend memorandum of appeal was but a natural consequence thereof particularly in view of the fact that judgment and decree in Regular Suit No. 222/2002 was passed subsequent to the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 in Regular Suit No. 56 of 2009. It has been further submitted that only a single ground is sought to be incorporated in memorandum of appeal particularly in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 2 C.P.C. to the effect that no submissions can be advanced or evidence led in absence of specific pleadings for the same. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 518 , P. Kunjukrishna Pillai and others v. D. Sreekantan Nair and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 4439 of 2008 and Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 167 with the submission that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has clearly held that amendment is permissible to be incorporated in the memorandum of appeal if required to do absolute justice between the parties. 10. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that the amendment application has been rejected on the only ground that it would delay proceedings while completely ignoring necessity of such amendment to be incorporated in the memorandum of appeal. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 3 while refuting submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that proceedings of Regular Suit No. 222/2002 were already pending at the time of institution of Regular Suit No. 56 of 2009 and therefore, pleadings sought to be incorporated by means of the amendment application could very well have been taken at trial stage itself. The said fact was not brought on record at trial stage due to which no issue was framed with regard to same, which clearly indicates that such amendment being sought to be incorporated at appellate stage is being done only for purposes of delaying the proceedings which have already been pending for the past five years. 12. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 13. It is admitted fact that although Regular Suit No. 222/2002 was instituted by the petitioner prior to filing of Regular Suit No. 56 of 2009 but the said Regular Suit No. 222/2002 was actually decided finally subsequent to the decision in Regular Suit No. 56 of 2009. It was in these circumstances that application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was filed by petitioner at the appellate stage and was allowed by means of order dated 2.05.2018 which remains unchallenged. 14. It is a relevant fact that application under Order 41 Rule 27 pertained to proceedings of Regular Suit No. 222 of 2002 and by means of the said application, documents filed in said suit were brought on record along with judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014. 15. In the application filed for amendment of memorandum of appeal, it has been stated that in Regular Suit No. 222/2002, the defendant (opposite parties in this petition) also filed written statement with counter claim but thereafter did not participate in the proceedings thereby abandoning the counter claim which, therefore, precluded them from filing another suit. It was stated that in view of the said proceedings, and particularly in view of allowing of application for taking additional evidence, amendment to the memorandum of appeal is required, to do complete justice between the parties. 16. It was stated that in view of the said proceedings, and particularly in view of allowing of application for taking additional evidence, amendment to the memorandum of appeal is required, to do complete justice between the parties. 16. It is thus clear that once the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was allowed by appellate court permitting the appellant to bring on record the proceedings and judgment pertaining to Regular Suit No. 222/2002, the natural consequence would be amendment to memorandum of appeal in order to enable appellant to take the grounds available to him and relating to bringing on record such additional evidence. In case such amendment in the memorandum of appeal is not permitted, the entire purpose of allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. would stand defeated. 17. A perusal of impugned order dated 08.07.2019 clearly indicates only reason for rejecting the amendment application as being delay in deciding the appeal due to allowing of amendment application. The court below has not at all appreciated the effect and purpose of the amendment sought to be incorporated in memorandum of appeal, which it was necessarily required to do. Rejecting amendment application merely on the ground that it would delay proceedings cannot be said to be a cogent ground without adverting to the purpose, effect and necessity of the amendment sought to be incorporated. 18. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others(supra) has clearly held that delay in filing application for amendment of the written statement cannot stand in the way of allowing the prayer for amendment of written statement. It has also been held that while allowing an application for amendment of pleadings, the Court cannot go into the question of merit of such amendment and that the only question required to be seen would be whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the real controversy between parties in the suit. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment is quoted as follows: "Since, we are of the view that delay is no ground for not allowing the prayer for amendment of the written statement and in view of the submissions made by Mr. Kapadia, we do not think that delay in filing the application for amendment of the written statement can stand in the way of allowing the prayer for amendment of the written statement. Kapadia, we do not think that delay in filing the application for amendment of the written statement can stand in the way of allowing the prayer for amendment of the written statement. So far as the second ground is concerned, we are also of the view that while allowing an application for amendment of the pleadings, the Court cannot go into the question of merit of such amendment. The only question at the time of considering the amendment of the pleadings would be whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties in the suit." 19. In P. Kunjukrishna Pillai(supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that an amendment application cannot be rejected only for the ground that it was not filed before the trial commenced. 20. In State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.(supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has clearly held that provisions in Civil Procedure Code leave no manner of doubt that the appellate court has power to grant leave to amend memorandum of appeal. The relevant potion of the judgment reads as follows: "23. Do the principles relating to amendment of pleadings in original proceedings apply to the amendment in the grounds of appeal? Order 41 Rule 2 CPC makes a provision that the appellant shall not, except by leave of the court, urge or be heard in support of any ground of objection not set forth in the memorandum of appeal; but the appellate court, in deciding the appeal, shall not be confined to the grounds of objections set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the court. Order 41 Rule 3 CPC provides that where the memorandum of appeal is not drawn up as prescribed, it may be rejected, or be returned to the appellant for the purpose of being amended. The aforesaid provisions in CPC leave no manner of doubt that the appellate court has power to grant leave to amend the memorandum of appeal." "24. As a matter of fact, in Harcharan v. State of Haryana [ (1982) 3 SCC 408 ], this Court observed that the memorandum of appeal has the same position as the plaint in the suit. This Court said: "5. ... As a matter of fact, in Harcharan v. State of Haryana [ (1982) 3 SCC 408 ], this Court observed that the memorandum of appeal has the same position as the plaint in the suit. This Court said: "5. ... When an appeal is preferred the memorandum of appeal has the same position like the plaint in a suit because plaintiff is held to the case pleaded in the plaint. In the case of memorandum of appeal same situation obtains in view of Order 41 Rule 3. The appellant is confined to and also would be held to the memorandum of appeal. To overcome any contention that such is not the pleading the appellant sought the amendment." 21. Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgments in the facts and circumstances of present case, it can be seen that the learned court below had completely ignored the necessity of incorporating amendment as sought by appellant and the application has been rejected only on the ground that it would delay proceedings. As seen from the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court indicated hereinabove, the said ground cannot be a valid or cogent ground for rejecting the application for amendment. 22. In view of the fact that amendment application has been filed merely to substantiate pleadings with regard to additional evidence already permitted to be brought on record by the appellate court, this Court is of the opinion that the said amendment application should have been allowed by appellate court. 23. In the aforesaid circumstances, petition is allowed setting aside order dated 08.07.2019 passed by Additional District Judge (PC Act-I), Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014 (Tarun Kumar Srivastava v. Gur Bux Singh and others). Application No. A-146 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014 is also allowed as a consequence. 24. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed order dated 28.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 5955(M/S) of 2019(Gurdeep Singh v. Additional District Judge/Special Judge, P.C. Act-1, Lucknow and another) with the submission that this Court has already directed the appellate court to decide Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014 with expedition, say, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of order is submitted. Learned counsel for opposite parties submits that in view of aforesaid direction, the appeal is required to be decided in terms of order dated 28.02.2019, although the time frame indicated in said order has already expired. 25. Keeping in mind the direction issued by this Court earlier on 28.02.2019, learned court below, i.e. learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, P.C. Act-1, Lucknow is directed to decide the appeal with expedition in terms of order dated 28.02.2019, however with the slight modification that in view of this order, the appeal shall be decided preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is brought on record in the appellate proceedings. Consequential amendment to memorandum of appeal shall be incorporated by the appellant within a period of seven days from the date a copy of this order is brought on record before the court concerned and the proceedings shall thereafter be completed within the time frame as indicated herein-above.