- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a revision under Section 333 of 'upza and LR Act. preferred against the judgment and order dated August 28, 1992, passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 22-7-91 passed by the learned trial Court on the application for amendment moved by the revisionist.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that during the proceedings of the case before the learned trial Court. An applica tion dated 12-10-89 for amendment in the written statement was moved. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated July 22, 1991 rejected the aforesaid applica tion. Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Addl. Com missioner dismissed the revision on August 28, 1992. Hence, this second revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record on file. For the revisionist it was con tended that the learned Courts below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction in dis missing the amendment application of the revisionist that the nature of the suit was not going to be changed and as such the aforesaid application for amendment should be allowed, that the learned Courts below while considering the amendment sought by the party have no jurisdiction to enter into merit or the correctness or facts, * t 'ed in the amendment application, that the learned Addl. Commissioner without discussing the nature of the amendment sought by the revisionist illegally rejected the applications for amendment by means of his non-speaking order which deserves to be set aside. In support of his conten tion he has relied upon a case law reported in 1994 Supplementary RD page 267. None appeared for the OP despite due notice. I have closely and carefully con sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also gone through the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the records it is abundantly clear that the learned trial Court has not properly analysed discussed and considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of this case and has rejected the aforesaid application for amendment by means of its cursory stipu lated order dated 22-7-91. The learned lower Revisional Court has also not properly examined the matter in question in correct perspective of law and has dis missed the revision on 28- 8-92 without recording his independent finding on the matter in question.
(3.) HAVING scrutinized the matter in question, 1 find that by means of the proposed amendment the nature of the suit shall not be changed as such 1 see no reason to reject the aforesaid application for amendment. In order to promote the ends of the substantive natural justice and to facilitate to its course, it would be quite just and proper to allow the aforesaid ap plication for amendment to advance the natural justice between the parties. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed and the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be set aside.;