- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 16-11-1998 whereby the application for amendment in the memo of revision has been rejected by respondent No. 1. The petitioner is landlord of the premises in dispute. An application was filed for allotment. It was allotted in favour of respon dent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The application was allowed. He preferred a revision against this order. During the pendency of the revision he filed an application to amend the memo of revision. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the application.
(2.) I have heard Ms. Sandhya Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent. Respondent No. 1 in its order has observed that the amendment in the memo of revision can be allowed at the stage of hearing. He rejected it taking the view that it was not to be bona fide. A perusal of amendment application indicates that the petitioner wanted to lake certain grounds to challenge the revision. The respondent No. 1 acted illegally in rejecting the amendment application. The amendment will hardly cause any prejudice to the respondents. In view of the above the writ peti tion is allowed and the order dated 16-11-1998 is hereby quashed. The Court shall decide the revision taking into considera tion the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of revision alongwith the addi tional grounds taken in the amendment of the memo of the revision while hearing the revision on merits. Petition allowed. .;