Suneet Kumar, J. - (1.) The judgment/debtor has approached this Court assailing the order dated 23 January 2016 passed by the revisional Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Meerut in Civil Revision No. 141 of 2014 (Suresh Chand v. Arun Kumar and others) . It appears that the suit for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed ex-parte against the applicant, against which an application under Order 9, Rule 13 was instituted and the said application is pending.
(2.) The decree holder instituted an execution proceedings wherein, the applicant filed a petition under Section 47 CPC which was rejected; aggrieved, the present revision was filed. During the pendency of the revision an amendment application was moved seeking amendment of the petition filed under Section 47 CPC to incorporate, inter alia, that the civil court on the face of the pleadings in the plaint would have no jurisdiction as the suit pertains to landlord and tenant, therefore, was not cognisable by the Civil Judge, rather by the Small Causes Court. The revisional court rejected the application merely for the reason that since the application under Section 47 was rejected on merits, therefore, the amendment during revision cannot be allowed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Kashi Naresh Mehrotra v. Roop Narayan Chaudhari and others (2007 (69) ALR 122) , wherein, this Court relying upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (AIR 1970 SC 1) and Radhey Lal v. Special Judge, Bulandshahr and others (1993 (22) ALR 98) held, that revision being in the nature of appeal, therefore, amendment could be filed at any stage including at the stage of revision.;