1. The Plaintiff/Landlord has filed this Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC challenging the Order passed below Exhibit 49 in Civil Appeal No.113 of 1997 preferred by the Respondents-Tenants granting his Review Application and permitting him to amend his Written Statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-before the Appellate Court.

2. It appears that initially the challenge was presented as a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same was registered as Writ Petition No.6994 of 2003. This Court admitted it and granted interim relief on 14.11.2003 and later permitted the same to be converted into Appeal against Order in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 (w) of C.P .C. vide its order dated 13.4.2010.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Landlord points out that R.C.S. No.20 of 1995 was filed by the Landlords pointing out that the tenant had discontinued payment of rent form April 1990 and was a defaulter. The tenant filed his Written Statement and denied the said contention as false and leveled motive. The trial Court by judgment dated 25.4.1997 decreed the Suit. This Decree has been questioned by the Respondent-Tenant in Appeal No.113 of 1997 and in that Appellants/Tenants filed an Application at Exhibit 38 seeking leave to produce some rent receipts under provisions of order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. The Appellate Court after hearing the respective parties rejected that Application dated 10.7.2001 on 7.8.2001. The said rejection was questioned by the Respondent/Tenant in a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was registered as Writ Petition No.5276 of 2002 and it was dismissed on 2.6.2003.

4. Thereafter on 21.7.2003 the tenant filed an Application under Order VI Rule 17 to add para 5A to his Written Statement to plead that before filing of the Suit he had twice forwarded rent to the landlord, the landlord did not accept it and therefore was received back by the Tenant. The Tenant on the basis of this fact wanted to urge that he could not have been leveled as a defaulter. The Application was objected to by the Appellants/Landlord and by an order dated 16.8.2003 the Additional District Judge rejected that Application.

5. After the said rejection, the tenant on 2.9.2003 filed an Application at Exhibit 49 under section 114 read with section 47 of CPC and sought review of said Order dated 16.8.2003 contending that in the light of provisions of section 16 sub section 2 of CPC (Amendment) Act 2002, the amended Order under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. could not have been applied to Civil Appeal No.113 of 1997. This was also opposed by the Landlords.

6. By impugned order dated 16.9.2003 passed below Exhibit 49 the Appellate Court granted that Review and permitted the Tenant to amend his Written Statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-.

7. Advocate for the Appellants submits that the Appellate Court in this situation has exceeded the jurisdiction available to it while considering the said Application. The amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in 2002 was not the sole reason given by the Appellate Court while rejecting the Application moved by the tenant vide Exhibit 46. Negligent conduct of the Appellant/Tenant and delaying tactics was looked into and for these reasons, the Appellate Court did not permit him to amend his defence. These reasons are totally lost sight of while allowing the Review Application. Learned counsel submitted that though the amended C.P.C. may not apply, other grounds recorded by the Appellate Court while rejecting Application at Exhibit 46 were valid and the Appellate Court could not have reviewed the same. As the impugned order overlooks all these aspects the same is liable to be set aside and the earlier order dated 16.8.2003 needs to be restored.

8. Advocate Dani for the Respondent-Tenant has raised preliminary objections. According to him, correctness or otherwise of the order granting Amended Application cannot be looked into b