D.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.K. Gupta for the revisionist and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite party. This revision is proposed to be disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) THE revision is directed against an order of judge, Small Causes Court, Dehradun rejecting an application for amendment in the written statement sought by the defendant revisionist. The said application was rejected on the ground that it was nothing but a move to delay disposal of the suit and that the proposed amendment cannot be allowed to permit the defendant to resile from the previous admission and lastly that the proposed amendment is not essential for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the SCC suit. The main stress has been that in the plaint the plaintiff has averred in paragraph No. 3 that the building is situate outside the municipal limit of Dehradun in village Bhoor and was constructed by the plaintiff in the year 1990. The reply in the written statement to this paragraph is that it is incorrect that the building is situate outside the municipal limits and it is further denied that the property was constructed in the year 1990 and U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is not applicable. On this plea issue was framed whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable or not. Through the proposed amendment the defendant wants to plead in para. 3 of the written statement that the property is outside the municipal limits. It is not every amendment which has been refused is liable to be allowed and rectified in revision. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The view of the lower court on facts and law, however erroneous it may be, is not subject to correction in revision. By rejecting the proposed amendment for the reasons stated in the impugned order the learned lower court did not commit any illegality or jurisdictional error. Consequently, the revision is bound to fail.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist, however, contended that the issue whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the building or not will not cover the controversy whether the building is situate outside the municipal limits of Dehradun and if so what will be its effect on the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Since the proposed amendment in the written statement has been refused by the trial court and has not been permitted in the revision, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the trial court shall frame an issue upon the allegations made in para. 3 of the plaint and as denied in para. 3 of the written statement whether the disputed, building is situate outside the municipal limits of Dehradun and if so, its effect on the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. With the above observations, the revision is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the issue so framed shall be decided in accordance with law.;