ALOK KUMAR KAUSHIK Vs. O.P. SHAH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the revisionist.

(2.) This revision u/s 25 of the PSCC Act is preferred against the order dated 31.5.2016 passed by JCC/Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act in S.C. Suit No. 19 of 2008, rejecting an amendment application (paper no. 85C) filed by the defendant.

(3.) The revisionist is a tenant and is facing an eviction suit filed in the year 2008 on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent etc. After closure of plaintiff's evidence in the year 2010, the revisionist had filed an acknowledgement, bearing the endorsement of receipt of the statutory notice. The applicant filed an amendment application to the effect that in paragraph-13 of the existing written statement, it be added that he had not received any quit notice dated 2.11.2007 either by him or by his family members and that the postman concerned did not come at his office or residence between 2.11.2007 to 18.11.2007. The application was objected on the ground that the same is malafidely motivated with a view to further delay the pending trial. The court below vide order impugned dated 31.5.2016 rejected the amendment application, primarily on the ground that as the fact, which was sought to be introduced by way of proposed amendment was already within the knowledge of the tenant/opposite party, same was barred by the proviso appended to Order-VI Rule 17 CPC.