- (1.) The petitioner is defendant in a suit filed under section 176 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950. The respondent No. 1 is plaintiff. He prayed for an interim injunction which appears to have been granted on 22.3.2002. This is the first order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The suit was dismissed in default on 29.4.2002. During this period of dismissal an application for amendment was filed by the respondent-plaintiff which was allowed on 30.1.2003. The petitioner who is a defendant aggrieved by this incorrect procedure having been adopted by the Trial Court filed an application to the effect that the suit itself was not maintainable as the amendment has been allowed during the period when the suit had been dismissed in default. This application was rejected on 18.6.2003. A revision was filed which has been dismissed on 25.11.2005.
(2.) The present petition has been filled against three orders of the Trial Court, first against the injunction of status quo, secondly against the procedure adopted by the Trial Court for allowing the amendments, and thirdly rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the issue of maintainability.
(3.) Sri Madan Bihari Lal learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed a manifest error which aspect has been fully ignored by the Revisional Court.;