H. C. Mital, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 6-2-90 passed by Sri A. L. Verma, Additional District Judge, Roorkee, recjecting the applicant's application for amendment of the written statement in S.C.C. suit no. 54 of 1988 for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. Through the amendment application the defendant-applicant sought to take the plea that the. accommodation in question belonged to the father of the plaintiff and after his death it had devolved on his legal heirs and that the plaintiff alone was not landlord nor entitled to a decree for eviction against the defendant.
(2.) IN the impugned order the learned court below has specifically stated that the suit was filed by the plaintiff as there has been default in payment of rent with specific allegation that the plaintiff was landlord and defendant was his tenant. IN his written statement the defendant-applicant has admitted that grand-father of the plaintiff was the owner from whom he had taken it on rent and after his death the father of the plaintiff became the owner who continued to realise rent and he further specifically admitted that in the month of December, 1985 plaintiff's father told him that plaintiff was the owner and he further specifically admitted that be was always ready and willing to pay the rent to the plaintiff. Thus the defendant did not deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself. IN that view of the specific admission in the written statement, the defendant through amendment application sought to resile from the earlier admission and deny the plaintiff's title as landlord and, therefore, he rejected the amendment application. Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the revisionist has urged that a party can be permitted through an amendment application to withdraw its admission and reliance has been placed on an observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Km. Jyoti Sahay, AIR 1983 SC 462. In that case the plaintiff had filed a title suit for declaration that he was entitled to withdraw a certain amount deposited by the second defendant in the court. The plaintiff had described himself as the son of 'uterine brother' of Rama Shanker Prasad. Subsequently the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint, inter alia, seeking deletion of the word 'Uterine' from the plaint. The trial court granted the application for amendment. The respondents preferred a Civil Revision in the High Court of Judicature at Patna and the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court allowed the revision observing as under : "I, however, feel satisfied at least to this extent that in view of the legal position this word 'Uterine' has got a significance and may work in favour of either side to a very great extent. In this context therefore as it would amount to change the basis of the claim I am of the view that the amendment should not have been allowed." Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978) 2 SCR 614 : AIR 1978 SC 484, wherein after a review of number of the decisions Hon. Beg. C.J. observed that procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the Court of substantive justice. Their Lordships also rejected the contention of the the counsel for the respondents that by the device of amendment a very important admission was being withdrawn. Thereupon their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed :- "An admission made by a party may be withdrawn or may be explained away, therefore, it cannot be said that by amendment an admission of fact cannot be withdrawn. The learned trial Judge granting the application for amendment was satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, amendment of the pleading was necessary. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction for a reason which is untenable ought not to have interfered with the order made by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondents in this connection read one unreporrted decision of this Court in which this Court upheld the decision of the High Court setting aside the order granting amendment in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. We have gone through the judgment The decision does not lay down any particular principle of law and appears to be a decision on its own facts. And oridnarily, it is well settled that unless there is an error in exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court, the High Court would not interfere with the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Viewed from this angle, we find no justification for the High Court interferring with the order made by the learned trial Court granting the application for amendment to the plaint. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the learned trial Judge."
(3.) FROM the above it is clear that their Lordships of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the High Court of Judicature at Patna had wrongly interferred in allowing the revision with the order of the trial court even though there was no error of exercise of the jurisdiction by the trial court. That apart their Lordships were also of the view that the learned trial Judge granting application for amendment was satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, amendment of the pleading was necessary. In the present case it is already on record that the property originally belonged to the grand-father of the plaintiff. Then it came to the plaintiff's father, who continued to realise rent, and thereafter at the behest of the plaintiff's father the defendant was told that the plaintiff was owner and he should pay rent to him and the defendant thereafter was ready and willing to pay rent to the plaintiff. Under the circumstances of the case the amendment sought that the plaintiff alone was not the landlord and entitled to a decree for ejectment was not necessary for effectively adjudicating upon the dispute between the parties. The dispute was only regarding relationship of the landlord and tenant and when admittedly the defendant had admitted the plaintiff to be his landlord and was ready and willing to pay rent, he cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath and now turn round and allege that the plaintiff alone is not entitled to the decree in question. That apart, as observed by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Panchdeo Narain Srivastava' (supra) the law is well settled that unless there is error in exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court, the High Court would not interfere with the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.;