S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order dated 13-10-1992, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in Revision Petition No. 4 of 1992, dismissing the revision in limine and confirming the order, dated 21-9-1992, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the plaintiff, Baij Nath etc. instituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act before the learned trial Court on 7-12-1978, against the defendants, Gaya Prasad etc. for declaration of their rights as Bhumidhar in possession of the land, in dispute and possession thereof, if they are not found in possession, after ejecting the defendant No. 1. During the course of the pendency of this Suit, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint and the learned trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the same on payment of Rs. 50/- as cost, vide its order, dated 21-9-1992. Aggrieved by this order, Gaya Prasad filed a revison petition before the learned Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed in limine on 13-10-1992. It is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been preferred before the Board by Gaya Prasad. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, on file. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that since the learned Courts below, have failed to consider the case of the revisionist, they failed to exercise their jurisdiction; that the impugned orders are no orders is the eyes of law, as the learned Courts below have allowed the amendment application in question without considering the scope of Order VI, Rule 17 CPC and the amendment sought for changes the nature of the suit; that the amendment application moved by the plaintiff is not admissible in law, as the same was filed at a very belated stage; that since the plaintiffs were not entitled in law to introduce a new case, the learned Courts below have grossly erred in allowing the same; that since the plaintiffs have sought amendment of the plaint without showing any cause of action for the same, the aforesaid application cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed and by doing so, the learned Courts below have gone beyond their jurisdiction; that since the application was moved after 14 years of the institution of the suit and that too, without assigning any cause of action for the same, the amendment sought for does not come within the ambit of Order VI, Rule 17 CPC and therefore, the same should not have been allowed, which was moved in order to delay the disposal of the suit for the reasons, better known to them; that in any view of the matter, the amendment sought for cannot be allowed in law as the same is nothing but a dilatory tactics and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to sustain and this revision petition deserves to be allowed. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply, urged that since the learned trial Court, vide its order, dated 21-9-1982, has very rightly observed about the necessity of the amendment sought for in order to achieve the ends of substantive natural justice and to facilitate its course and the learned Additional Commissioner has also concurred with the views, taken by the learned trial Court by dismissing the revision petition filed by the revisionist in limine, the impugned orders were perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and therefore, this revision petition having no force, very richly deserves dismissed outright.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel of the parties and have also scanned the records, on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly revesals that the instant suit, filed in the year 1978, is still pending before the learned trial Court and the same is lingering on a point of the amendment of the plaint, having been allowed by the learned trial Court, which in its order, dated 21-9-1992, has observed that by moving the amendment application, the disposal of the suit would certainaly be delyed, but in the interest of justice, it felt it necessary to allow the same. The learned Additional Commissioner has also concurred with the finding, recorded by the learned trial Court and has rightly dismissed the revision petition, in limine, as the suit is still pending before the learned trial Court and the revisionist has ample opportunity to file evidence, in rebutted of the same or to file amendment of his written statement, accordingly, if he so desires and therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am also of the view that the learned Courts below, were perfectly justified in rendering the impugned orders. No illegality or mate irregualrity, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, has been committed by them an therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition, having no force, very reichly deserves dismissal, outright. Needless to say, since the disposal of the suit has unnecessarily been delayed so much, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties, concerned.;