Pratush Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri G.K. Pathak, advocate appearing for the revisionist.
(2.) The present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act assailing the validity of order dated 1st July, 2015 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. (V), Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No. 158 of 2014 (Vishnu Kumar Mishra v. Shanti Kumar Asthana) whereby amendment application moved by plaintiff/respondent has been allowed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. According to him, the lower court has permitted the respondent to change the name of the revisionist/defendant. According to him, whatever rights accrued vide notice dated 21st March, 2012 were against Shantanu Kumar Asthana. Now by the impugned order, learned lower court has permitted the plaintiff to shift the default on the present revisionist whereas he was not given any valid notice terminating his tenancy. He further submits that nowhere name of the revisionist has been shown as Shantanu Kumar Asthana. According to him, law does not permit any person to change name of any other person.;