Prem Narain Gupta vs Shri Krishna Pandey

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard counsel for the revisionist and Sri Manish Tandon for the plaintiff - respondent.

The delay in filing the revision is condoned. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the instant revision.

The revision is directed against the order dated 18.2.2017, whereby the Judge Small Causes has rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment in the written statement.

The plaintiff - respondent instituted SCC Suit No.299 of 2014 for recovery of arrears of taxes, damages and for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises. It was alleged that the accommodation was let out to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (opposite party no.2 to the instant revision). However, it was sublet to the revisionist and opposite party no.3 herein. It was further alleged that there has been change of user of the premises from non residential to residential.

The suit was contested by the revisionist by filing a written statement denying the allegation of subletting. It was claimed that the revisionist is occupying the premises in his own right.

After the evidence of the defendants was over, the revisionist filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement. By the amendment application, the revisionist wanted to incorporate a plea to the effect that the suit instituted before the Judge Small Causes for recovery of arrears of taxes and damages without there being any prayer for recovery of arrears of rent was not maintainable, as a regular civil court alone would have jurisdiction to try such a suit. It was claimed that the said plea could not be raised earlier because of lack of legal advice.

The trial court by impugned order dated 18.2.2017 rejected the amendment application after recording a specific finding that on 28.9.2016, after recording the remaining evidence of the defendants, a date for hearing was fixed. It was at that stage that amendment application was filed without any justifiable reason having been disclosed for not being able to seek such amendment before the commencement of the trial. However, while rejecting the amendment application, the trial court left it open to the revisionist to raise the plea relating to the jurisdiction at the time of hearing.

After some argument, counsel for the revisionist submitted that the apprehension of the revisionist is that the plea sought to be raised by amendment would not be considered by the trial court without such plea having been incorporated in the written statement. He, therefore, submitted that this Court may clarify that the trial court should decide the plea in case it is raised before it at the time of hearing.

Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff - respondent very fairly submitted that he has no objection to such plea being raised at the time of hearing, being a purely legal plea.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court, while declining to interfere with the impugned order as thereby no prejudice has been caused to the revisionist, disposes of the revision by clarifying that in case the plea relating to jurisdiction is raised before the Judge Small Causes at the time of hearing, the same shall be decided on merits.

In the end, Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the revisionist is only interested in delaying the proceedings and therefore, the trial court be directed to decide the suit expeditiously.

Having regard to the facts of the case and the submissions made, it is further provided that the suit shall be decided by the trial court expeditiously and without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

The revision stands disposed of accordingly.