- (1.) In the present revision the revisionist is challenging the order of the Judge Small Cause Court dated 6.9.2007 by which he has allowed the amendment application filed by the Plaintiff.
(2.) The revisionist is the Defendant in S.C.C. Case No. 9 of 2005. The Plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that he is landlord of the shop in dispute and the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable, which was let out to revisionist on a rent @ Rs. 1,000/- per month through an agreement/rent deed on 18.11.1977. The revisionist-Defendant did not pay the rent therefore a notice was sent. The suit was for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The revisionist-Defendant filed the written statement and denied the allegations of plaint. The Plaintiff-Respondent moved an amendment application, which was marked as 56G for the amendment in the plaint. By way of amendment, the Plaintiff sought the amendment as follows: In paragraph-2 of third line, in place of "Ikrarnama/rent agreement", the word Ikrarnama be deleted; in paragraph-3, in place of word "Ubhay Paksho", "Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1" be substituted and after the word "Defendant", "Defendant No. 1" be mentioned and in paragraph-6 an addition has been sought that "instead of vacating the shop, Defendant No. 1 has given the shop to Sri Sanjeev Kumar, Defendant No. 2 @ Rs. 250/- per month". The revisionist contested the amendment. However, the Court below has allowed the amendment by the impugned order on the cost of Rs. 500/-. It has been held that by the amendment, the nature of the suit has not been changed and the averments made in the plaint have not been resiled.
(3.) Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri H.M. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents.;