O.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 17.7.1988 and 7.2.1989 passed by Respondents 2 and 1 respectively.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition, in brief, are that the respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner tenant in respect of two properties description of which has been given in the plaint. The plaintiff sought amendment to add property No. 354/1 and also to correct the boundaries of the property detailed at 'A' in the plaint which according to the plaintiff was wrongly mentioned.
(3.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the two impugned orders. In my opinion, the Courts below have not committed any manifest error of law in allowing the amendment. The plaintiff's case was that inadvertently he failed to mention the number of property No. 354/1 in the plaint and similarly, the boundaries of the other property was also not correctly described. It is not such an amendment, which may change the nature of the case. The learned Counsel tried to argue on merits of the application that property No. 354/1 was not liable to be included as no notice was given. This matter is not open to be raised in the resent writ petition. After the amendment is incorporated this plea can be taken by the petitioner in his written statement and the same will be decided by the Court.;