SUNITA AGARWAL, J. - (1.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.01.2016 passed by the Additional District judge, Court no.1, Pilibhit in Small Causes Case No.03 of 2013 (Haq Nawaz Ahmad Vs. Abdul Ahmad). Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are:-
(2.) The SCC case no.03 of 2013 under section 20(2) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been filed for eviction of the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent and demanding arrears of rent. Written statement was filed by the petitioner on 08.04.2013, the suit has proceeded for evidence. At the stage of evidence an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 03.11.2015 with a prayer to amend the written statement. The Court below has rejected the application on 23.01.2016 on the ground that the amendment has been sought in order to delay the proceedings and to avoid cross-examination of the plaintiff. It is further recorded by the Court below that by means of the amendment the petitioner seeks to withdraw the admission made by him in the written statement. Aggrieved by this order the present petition has been filed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that there was no bar for the defendant to withdraw his admission, the amendment in the written statement stands on a different footing than the amendment in the plaint. The delay cannot be taken as a ground for refusal of prayer for amendment in the written statement. The amendment was necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties in suit and moreover no prejudice will cause to the plaintiff on account of the amendment sought by the petitioner. The question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is the real issue to be decided by the Court below. The suit is at the stage of evidence and as such the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted. The plaintiff has enough opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the defendant.;