Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 4.7.2017 passed the District Judge, Kasganj in Civil Revision No.1 of 2016. By the said order, the District Judge has allowed the revision filed by Nagar Palika, the defendant/ respondent, against the order dated 2.11.2015, by which the trial court rejected the application seeking amendment in the written statement. The revisional court has allowed the amendment application and has granted 20 days time to the plaintiff/petitioners to file replication, if any, against the amended pleadings.
(2.) The petitioners instituted original suit no.238 of 1994 against the defendant/respondent seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent, Nagar Palika, Soron, Kasganj from interfering in their possession over the suit property or from carrying out demolition of the structures existing over it. The suit was contested by the Nagar Palika by filing a written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant/ respondent, Nagar Palika filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement. The trial court rejected the amendment application by order dated 2.11.2015 primarily on the ground that the amendment sought was well within the knowledge of the Nagar Palika, consequently, pleadings in that regard should have been incorporated in the original written statement and not by way of amendment. The trial court was of the opinion that in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002, such amendment could not be allowed after commencement of the trial. Aggrieved by the said order, the Nagar Palika filed civil revision no.1 of 2016. The same has been allowed by the revisional court by the order impugned.
(3.) Counsel for the applicants submitted that the trial court was justified in rejecting the amendment application in as much as the plea sought to be introduced by amendment was well within the knowledge of the defendant/respondent and consequently such plea could not be introduced after commencement of the trial having regard to proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. He further submitted that the revisional court, without setting aside the aforesaid finding of the trial court, has wrongly allowed the revision.;