- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challen ges the validity of the order dated 7-7-2000 By which the application for amendment of the memo or revision has been rejected by the revisional Court.
(2.) IT appears that it is on 30-3-1991 that the suit was decreed by the Judge Small Causes Court. Challenging the validity of the said decree the petitioner filed a revision before the Court below. After about nine years, petitioner filed an application for amendment in the memo or revision. By means of the said applica tion petitioner wanted to add following ground in the memo of revision: The application filed by the petitioner was objected to and opposed by the contesting respondent. It was con tended that the amendment application was not a bonafide application in as much as same was filed after nine years of the filing of the revision with a view to delay the disposal of the revision, therefore, the said application was liable to be rejected. The Court below up held the objection filed by the contesting respondent and held that the application was filed after about nine years just to delay the disposal of the revision and dismissed the said ap plication by its order dated hence 7-7-2000 the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by means of amendment petitioner wanted to raise a question of law before the Court below, therefore, there was no justification for the Court to reject the application of the petitioner.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the material on record. By means of the amendment application petitioner simply wanted permission to raise a question of law. That question could be raised without amending the memo of revision with the permission of the Court as the question which is sought to be raised was a pure question of law and did not involve factual controversy. In view of these facts, I do not find any justification for the Court below to reject the application of the petitioner and keep the revision pending. At this stage, if this petition is admitted or notices are issued to the respondents, on account of heavy penden cy of cases in this Court this petition will remain pending for several years, there fore, under the facts and circumstances I dispose of this petition finally with the observation that the petitioner shall be permitted to raise and press the above noted ground at the time of hearing of the revision ignoring the impugned order dated 7-7-2000 and that the revision shall be decided expeditiously preferably with in two months from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the Court below. It is further observed that in case the respondent No. 2 feels aggrieved by this order liberty to it to approach this Court for ventilation of its grievances, if any. It is further directed that a certified copy of this order shall be communicated by the Officer to the Special Judge, Mathura in Civil Revision No. 99 of 1991, Kunwar Pal Sharma v, Sri Thakur Dauji Maharajvirajman. petition disposed of. .;