- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.12.2009 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff-revisionist under Order VI, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. Suit was filed by plaintiff-revisionist seeking eviction of the tenants-defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent. A written statement was filed claiming that defendants-tenants were co-owner and in actual possession of the property. Subsequently, an application was also moved to transfer the proceedings to the Civil Court as disputed question of title is involved. Judge, Small Causes Court vide order dated 22.5.2009 rejected the said application on the ground that he has failed to produce any evidence, which may go to show that he was the co-owner as alleged in the written statement and there was any disputed question of title involved. Subsequently, on 30.11.2009 the plaintiff-revisionist moved an application seeking amendment in the plaint to the effect that the property over which ten shops, three rooms, one latrine and one bath room exist, is part and parcel of Khasra No. 726 and 727 and he is the sole landlord of the property. Court below vide order dated 23.12.2009 rejected the amendment application on the ground that since the evidence is over and the trial has commenced as such in the absence of any cogent reasons for not seeking the amendment earlier, the same cannot be allowed. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the revisionist that after the defendants filed written statement denying the fact that the plaintiff-revisionist was the landlord, the amendment was necessary and was only classificatory in nature hence the Court below has committed manifest error in law and rejected the same.
(2.) I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
(3.) Admittedly, the written statement was filed on 8.2.2007 and thereafter, the parties led their evidence and when the stage of evidence was over and trial had commenced, the amendment application was moved on 28.11.2009. Proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 clearly provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In the present case, in view of the fact that denial was made in the written statement on 8.2.2007 there was hardly any reason for the plaintiff to have not moved the amendment application, if at all it was required, within a reasonable time. Further the amendment was not at all required as the plaintiff-revisionist had already mentioned in the plaint that he is the landlord. In the absence of any cogent reason explained by the plaintiff-revisionist for delay in moving the application, no illegality appears to have been committed by the Court below in rejecting the same. In view of the above, civil revision stands dismissed.;