- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9-8-1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby respondent No. 2 has rejected the application filed by the defendant-petitioner before the trial Court for amendment in the written statement and against the order of the Revisional Court dated 26-5- 2000 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order of the trial Court.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent. The plaintiff-respondent filed Suit No. 1813 of 1988 in the Court of the then Munsif City, Kanpur Nagar for ejectment of the defendant-petitioner from part of the open land admeasuring 22 feet x 26 feet of premises No. 85/96-A, Jhakarkati, Kanpur and for putting him in the actual physical possession of the same on the ground that he was the owner of this property and the defendant-petitioner was its tenant. The petitioner filed his written statement. The petitioner filed an application for amendment in the written statement by adding two paragraphs 31 and 32 as under : (a) That after paras 30, 31 that no house No. 85/69-A, Jhakarkati Kanpur, is in existence and a disputed land is the part of Arazi No. 223 Minjumla Juhi Khurd, Kanpur, the plaintiff is the only owner of house No. 85/69, Jhakarkati, Kanpur. Trust Ram Chandra Ji, Janki Ji, Lakshman Ji and Mahadev Ji is the owner of the land in suit and Sarvarakar of the trust Sri Keshav Narain Mishra has started demanding the possession from the defendant. (b) That after paras No. 31, 32, the plaintiff has no right to demand the possession, damages or any amount of rent from the defendant and suit is liable to be dismissed and not maintainable.
(3.) THE trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner taking the view that as the petitioner had admitted the ownership of the respondent the amendment sought by him shall change the nature of the defence. THE petitioner had not sought for deletion of any paragraph in the written statement. He has only sought to clarify his stand in regard to his averments in the written statement. If the petitioner had sought for deletion of any paragraph whereby he had admitted certain facts, it could have been said that the petitioner was withdrawing his averments by amendment as indicted above. I do not find that the amendment will change the nature of the plea taken by him. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 9-8-1999 and 26-5-2000 are quashed. However, the trial Court shall decide the suit expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and a true copy of the writ petition before him by the petitioner. Petition allowed. .;