This petition under Article 227 challenged the rejection of an amendment application in a civil suit regarding rent recovery and eviction. The High Court upheld the trial court's view that the sought amendment was unnecessary surplusage as the plea was already covered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9165 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sageer Ahmad Respondent :- Smt. Shama Parveen And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22.11.2017 passed in Revision No. 226/2017 and order dated 12.4.2017 passed by Judge Small Causes in SCC Suit No. 282/2017.
By order dated 12.4.2017, Judge Small Causes in a suit instituted against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction has rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the written statement. By the amendment sought, the petitioner wanted to introduce a new paragraph in the written statement to the effect that no notice was affixed on the outer door of the house of the petitioner, as alleged by the plaintiff. He also reiterated the stand already taken in the written statement that notice dated 2.9.2014 was never received by him. The trial Court has observed that in paragraph 20 of the written statement, there is a specific plea taken to the effect that no notice as alleged in the plaint was ever sent to the defendant nor he refused to accept it. It was further alleged that all allegations made in the plaint in this regard are false and incorrect. The trial Court has observed that in view of the said pleading already contained in written statement, the amendment sought was not necessary. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the petitioner filed a time barred revision, which has been dismissed on the ground that it is delayed by time.
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner almost one
year after the passing of the order by the Revisional Court despite the fact that the revision was dismissed, as barred by time. Apart from it, this Court also concurs with the view taken by the trial Court that the pleading which is sought to be introduced is already contained in paragraph 20 of the written statement. Once the petitioner had denied receipt of notice allegedly sent to him determining his tenancy, it was implicit in the said pleading that service of the said notice had been denied by all modes including that by affixation. The trial Court, was therefore, fully justified in holding that the amendment sought was not necessary and was a surplusage.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 10.12.2018 AM/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the amendment application allowing a new plea regarding non-affixation of notice was legitimately rejected as surplusage given existing pleadings in the written statement.
Whether the revision petition filed a year later was barred by time limits.
Sageer Ahmad
Smt. Shama Parveen
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
