Amitav Banerji, J. - (1.) This civil revision is directed against an order of the District Judge, Banda, dated 8th October, 1974 passed in a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.
(2.) The plaintiff-applicants filed a suit on 22.12.1970 in the court of Munsif, Banda praying for the ejectment of the defendants from the accommodation in dispute along with a decree for rent and damages alleging that the accommodation was built after 1950. The defendants in their written statement took a plea that the accommodation in dispute was a pre-1950 construction. Subsequently, the defendants moved an application 20 A 2 for the amendment of the written statement on 7.8.1972 i.e. after coming in force of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and (Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 Act). It was stated in that application that the provisions of the 1972 Act applied as the building was undoubtedly constructed before 15th July, 1972 and, as such, the defendants were entitled to avail of the provisions of section 39 of the said Act. Objections were filed to this application for amendment and, subsequently the plaintiffs also moved an application 23AI on the 15th January, 1973 in which they sought the amendment of para 3 of the plaint. They now wanted to say that the accommodation in dispute was constructed in 1925. The trial court by its order dated 30th March, 1974 allowed both the applications for amendment. Since the trial court was also Judge of Small Cause Court a Small Cause Court Revision was filed before the District Judge by the defendant. The learned District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of the trial court in respect of the amendment of the plaint sought by the plaintiffs. The learned District Judge held that the application was mala tide and that the plaintiffs had not come to the court with clean hands. The present revision has been filed against the above order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants contended firstly, that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to sit as a court of appeal and disallow the application for amendment to the plaint, secondly, that the power of amendment is discretionary and unless it could be shown that the exercise of discretion was manifestly erroneous and contrary to well settled principles, it could not he interfered with, thirdly, that when the defendants were being permitted to change their case, the plaintiffs were also entitled to amend their pleadings fourthly, that the learned District Judge had not taken into consideration the material on the record which showed that the Construction was of the year 1925 and lastly it was contended that there was a mistake of fact in the pleadings and the plaintiffs were entitled to correct it. Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that this court exercised power of a revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code (here in after referred to as the code), and unless it could be shown that there was an error in exercise of jurisdiction, the order passed by the District Judge could not be interfered with. It was further contended that the District Judge had given cogent reasons for disallowing the amendment of the pleadings by the plaintiffs. This Court would not exercise its discretionary power in setting aside that order. It was also contended that the ambit of the power in a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court act is very wide and, as such the District Judge could interfere with the order of the trial court, for he found the order not to be in accordance with law.;