Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Lajpat Rai Mehrotra v. A.D.J., Bijnor And Others - WRIT - A No. 26421 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9888 (19 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26421 of  2006

Lajpat Rai Mehrotra vs. Addl. District Judge, Court No.4, Bijnor

and others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.4.2006 passed by the revisional court dismissing his application for amendment in the memo of revision and the written statement. The facts are that respondent-landlord filed a J.S.C.C. Suit no. 268 of 1999 for ejectment and arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2005. Against which, the tenant-petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision no. 2 of 2006. During the pendency of the revision, an application was moved by the tenant-petitioner seeking amendment in the memo of revision by adding a ground and also amendment in the written statement. The amendment application was rejected by the revisional court.

It has been stated by the petitioner himself in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that by the said amendment application he wanted to specify and qualify the grounds which were already there in general manner. The revisional court has dismissed the application on a finding that the amendment in written statement has been sought after 11 years of filing the suit. By means of the proposed amendment in the written statement, the tenant-petitioner sought to bring on record the fact that the shop in dispute was let out to him in the year 1981 without any allotment order and as such his status is that of an unauthorized occupant and as such the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction. It is clear that the amendment, if allowed, would have changed the complete nature of the suit itself and would have ousted the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court.

It is well settled that no such amendment which may change the nature of the suit is permissible. The revisional court has rightly rejected the amendment on the ground that not only it has been sought after 11 years but it will make the decree of the trial court ineffective.

In so far as the amendment sought in the grounds of memo of revision is concerned, the revisional court has held that though the said amendment is also not bonafide but in the interest of justice the point can be raised at the time of argument. In view of the averment made by the petitioner himself in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that the grounds sought to be added by amendment was already taken in memo of revision in a general manner and the permission by the revisional court that the said ground can be raised in argument, I find absolutely no scope of interference in this part of the revisional order as well.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is completely devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.