AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Grievance of petitioner is that an amendment application dated 25.3.2008 vide paper no.73Ka under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. in S.C.C. Suit No.12 of 2004 instituted at the instance of landlord, has been rejected by Additional District Judge, court no.2, Varanasi vide order dated 9.7.2009.
Additional written statement sought to be brought on record is annexed as annexure no.2 to the writ petition. It appears that amendment sought is in respect of certain documents, rent receipts, challan etc. which are already on record. Therefore, submission of counsel for petitioner is that no additional evidence will be required in respect of amendment, which has been refused by the court below.
I have perused the impugned order. While rejecting amendment application, main consideration weighing in the mind of Additional District Judge was that whatever tenant wants to bring by means of additional written statement, has already said in written statement itself, therefore, it does not require any amendment.
The counsel for petitioner has also tried to draw my attention that amendment which he wants to bring on record is only an elucidation of one line statement given in the written statement. Admittedly, evidence is already on record, therefore, in the event he is refused amendment, it might cause prejudice to the decision on merits of case. Additional written statement which has been refused by means of impugned order dated 9.7.2009 will not bring any change in the nature of suit and will not cause any further delay.
In the circumstances, I think that tenant be permitted to bring an amendment on record, which is nothing but detail elucidation of the fact already averred in the written statement, which is on record. To enable him to connect evidence, which is also on record at the time of argument, request of tenant/petitioner appears to be innocuous. No injury will be caused to landlord in case amendment is allowed on the contrary if proceedings are stayed as it is suit of the year 2004, landlord will suffer unnecessary delay.
For the reasons discussed above, order dated 9.7.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, court no.2, Varanasi, in S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 2004, is set at naught. Additional written statement be taken on record. It is open for landlord/respondent to file reply if he so desires. The writ petition is finally disposed of.