Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shyam Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) Writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.9.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar rejecting petitioner's application seeking amendment at the fag end when petitioner's all other attempt to prolong proceedings in P.A. Case No.11 of 2009 failed.
(3.) It is evident from record that entire proceedings were at the verge of completion and the case was listed for final hearing on various dates before application in question was filed by petitioner. Learned trial court has mentioned in the impugned order that final hearing commenced on 10.9.2012 and thereafter 14.9.2012 was fixed giving opportunity to the petitioner to address the Court and complete his arguments. However, instead of addressing the Court, petitioner moved an amendment application and therein he has not stated at all as to why aforesaid facts could not be brought earlier on record. The Court noticed that after completion of evidence, when date for final hearing was fixed, petitioner moved an application for appointment of a Commissioner, which was rejected by trial court on 24.7.2012. The said order attained finality. Thereafter 14.8.2012 was fixed for hearing but it was adjourned on an application made by the petitioner-tenant. Again on 24.08.2012 he sought adjournment, which was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 200/-. The petitioner-tenant was apprised that no further adjournment shall be granted and court fixed 30.8.2012 when also tenant did not co-operate for hearing and matter was adjourned to 3.9.2012 when Presenting Officer himself was absent being on leave and then it was fixed for 10.9.2012. On 10.9.2012, plaintiff's arguments were heard and in order to give opportunity to petitioner, 14.9.2012 was fixed but instead of advancing argument, he moved an amendment application in order to defer proceedings, which has been rejected by Court below observing that besides other, it clear lacks bona fide and apparently an attempt on the part of petitioner to delay proceedings. Even if, conduct of petitioner for the time being is ignored, looking to the facts at the stage when he filed amendment application even otherwise, I find that amendment application failed to satisfy requirement of statute and therefore, ultimate order passed by Court below rejecting it cannot be faulted.;