- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII, Ranchi dated 22nd March, 2006 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 2004, whereby the amendment application, preferred by the present petitioner about correct date of impugned order (which is 28th of June, 2004 whereas it was incorrectly mentioned in appeal memo as 26th June, 2004). This small amendment was not allowed by the lower appellate court about the correct date of the impugned order and therefore, this writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:- (i) the present petitioner and his brother were co-licensee for running a shop upon the land of the respondent-corporation. (ii) thereafter, there was a partition and on 27th May, 2004, the petitioner was given exclusive licence for running a shop upon the land of the respondent-corporation. (iii) this order was taken in a review/revision and again on 26th June, 2004, somebody was inducted as co-licensee in the same shop on the same land for any reason whatsoever and therefore, the petitioner challenged the said order under Section 152 of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation Act, 2001, before the District Judge, Ranchi, wherein the petitioner, who is original appellant, has mentioned the date of the impugned order as 26th June, 2004. (iv) thereafter, this petitioner got information that the correct date of the impugned order is 27th May, 2004. This amendment application was preferred for amending the memo of appeal and thereafter, upon filing a reply by the respondents or from the sources known to the petitioner, he came to know the correct date of impugned order as 28th June, 2004 and this correct date of impugned order, the present petitioner, who is original appellant, wants to incorporate in the memo of the appeal. This amendment application has not been allowed by the lower appellant court. The lower appellate court has lost sight of the fact that whatever amendment is to be allowed, merits of the amendment is not to be checked or seen or verified, at all. Correct date of the impugned order will help the lower appellate court in deciding the disputes in between the parties. Merits of the amendment should be decided later on. Whenever any amendment is being preferred, court must refrain itself from checking the merits of the amendment. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was not knowing that on which date, a third party has inducted as co-licensee. No communication was given to the petitioner and therefore, as per their information, knowledge or sources, it was 26th June, 2004 and therefore, in an Appeal bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 2004, there was some error in mentioning of the date of the impugned order, but, correct date of impugned order is 28th June, 2004. Such amendment ought to have been allowed by the lower appellate court. This is an error apparent on the face of the record.
(3.) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII, Ranchi dated 22nd March, 2006 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 2004 (Annexure-18 of the memo of the present petition) and, I, hereby, allow the amendment application, preferred by the present petitioner (original appellant).;