- (1.) SHISHIR Kumar, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6-12-2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Additional District Judge, Fatehpur) by which the amendment application of the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit No. 6 of 1982 in the Court of District Judge. Fatehpur, for the relief of injunction and for cancellation of the sale deed It has been alleged that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was dispossessed from the property in dispute on 20-3-1983. THE petitioner filed an amendment application for amendment, claiming the relief of possession. THE Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur, heard the amendment application and allowed the same by judgment and order dated 8-4-1997. THE contesting respondents (defendants) filed a Revision No. 46 of 1997 in the Court of District Judge, Fatehpur, which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 6-12- 2000 and set aside the judgment and order dated 8-4-1997 and rejected the amendment application. Aggrieved by the order-dated 6-12-2000 the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner submits that as at the time of filing the suit, the petitioner was in possession of the property, as such, no relief for possession was sought in the relief claimed in the suit. Only relief of injunction and cancellation of sale deed was sought while filing the plaint before the Court As the petitioner during the pendency of the suit has been dispossessed from the property, therefore, it was necessary to amend the plaint seeking relief of possession. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the amendment application can be allowed at any stage and at the time of filing the suit the petitioner was in possession, therefore, no relief or possession was sought and immediately after dispossessing from the land in dispute the amendment application has been filed.
(3.) THE petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2001 (1) JCLR 657 (SC) : 2001 JIR 298 (SC) : 2001 (42) ALR Page 582 Raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Ravappan & Ors. and has placed reliance upon Para 5 of the said judgment that Court should not adopted hyper technical approach while considering the amendment application. Another judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner is 2002 (1) JCLR 590 (SC) : 2002 (93) Revenue Decision, Page 104, Prem Bakshi & Ors. v. Dharam Dev & Ors. . THE reliance has been placed upon another judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (2) JCLR 650 (All) : 2003 JIR 766 (All) : 2003 (4) AWC 2889, Mishri Singh v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Basti & Ors. . On the basis of the aforesaid decisions the Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power to allow the amendment application is very wide and can be exercised at any stage of the suit in the interest of justice and the Court should not take very hyper technical view while considering the amendment application.;