Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) BOTH the aforesaid SCC Revisions arise out of the same SCC Suit No. 10 of 2007 and are also between the same parties, therefore, for the sake of convenience both the SCC Revisions are being taken up together and are being decided by a common judgment.
(2.) SCC Revision No. 117 of 2015 has been preferred by the revisionist -tenant against the order dated 19.09.2015, whereby his application for amendment of the written statement has been rejected. SCC Revision No. 101 of 2015 has also been preferred by the revisionist -tenant against the order dated 09.09.2015, whereby his application C -37 moved under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act for return of the plaint, has been dismissed. I have heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan on behalf of the revisionist and Sri Rajeev Kumar Tripathi appearing on behalf of the contesting opposite party -landlord.
(3.) SINCE both the revisions arise out of different orders, therefore, both the matters are being dealt with separately.;