SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against an order by which the application for amendment in the written statement filed by the petitioner who was a defendant in the suit has been rejected by the order impugned. The petitioner submits that a suit was filed against the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment. The defence of the petitioner was struck of and during the pendency of the suit, the property in question was sold to a third person who was not impleaded as a party to the suit. But the suit was decreed exparte and when the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid fact, he filed a revision before the revisional court and made an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. that plaintiff-respondent Ram Gopal Sahu has sold the disputed property to one Naresh Kumar Sahu on 25.4.2006, therefore, this fact should be incorporated in the written statement in paras 22, 23, 24 and 25 but the revisional court has rejected the application by the order impugned holding therein that as the petitioner's defence has already been struck of, therefore, the amendment application cannot be allowed. Sri K.Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner came to know regarding the fact that the property has already been sold during the pendency of the suit, then the suit should not have been decreed because on the date when the suit was decreed, he was not the plaintiff having interest in the property. The petitioner filed an application for amendment in the memo of revision, the said application was allowed, therefore, the petitioner wanted to amend the written statement on the ground that during pendency of the suit the property has already been sold to a third person i.e. Naresh Kumar Sahu on 24.5.2006 and on the date when the suit was decreed the plaintiff was not the owner of the property in question but the revisional court has rejected the application. It has been held by the revisional court that as the defence of the petitioner has already been struck of, therefore, there is no occasion for allowing the application for amendment by the revisional court and the revision will be decided on merit.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. It appears that during the pendency of the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, the property in question was sold but the suit was decreed exparte because of the fact that the defence of the petitioner was struck of and that has become final up to the High Court. The petitioner filed a revision stating all these facts and filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement. The revisional court rejected the application on the ground that as the defence of the petitioner has already been struck of and unless and until that order is set aside, the amendment in the written statement cannot be allowed as the suit has already been decreed. The contention of the petitioner that this fact was concealed by the plaintiff-respodnent that he has sold the property during the pendency of the proceeding. The revisional court while rejecting the application for amendment in the written statement filed by the petitoner has held that as the defence of the petitioner has already been struck of and that order has become final up to the High Court, in such a situation, if the amendment proposed in the written statement is allowed, then it will amount to sitting as reviewing the order of the High Court. It appears that against an order of striking of the defence, the petitioner has filed a writ petiton before this Court as writ Petition no. 33940 of 1997 and the same has been dismissed.In such a situation, I am of opinion that the revisional court has rightly rejected the application for amendment in the written statement filed by the petitioner.;