Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ratan Kant Sharma, learned counsel for contesting respondent.

2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner challenged the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5 Sitapur in Revision No. 2 of 2007 (Surjeet Singh and others v. Nand Kishore and others) thereby rejecting the application for amendment in written statement.

3. Undisputed fact of the present case are that the landlord/opposite party No. 2 to 8 filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in the Court of Judge Small Causes Sitapur, registered as SCC Suit No. 17 of 1992 (Sri Roop Kishore Mehrotra and others v. Amreek Singh and others), on the ground that defendants/ petitioners have defaulted in payment of rent and for illegal sub-letting the property in dispute.

4. Judge, Small Causes Sitapur vide order dated 26.3.2007 allowed and decreed the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed SCC Revision No. 2 of 2007. On 3.9.2009 arguments heard thereafter on 25.9.2009 plaintiffs/ respondent Nos. 4 to 8 sold a portion of the property in dispute so due to said development, on 6.10.2009 petitioners moved an application for amendment in written statement praying therein that the following facts may be added in the written statement :

“Dhara1- yeh ki dhara 15 ke vaad dhara 15a nimn likhene ki agya pradan ki jave.

Dhara 15A- yet ki vadigan Vimal Kishore, Kaushal Kishore, Prakash Chandra, Jagdish Chandra, Smt. Pratibha, Smt. Ranjana va Smt. Durgarani ne ukt plot jo prativadi ka kiraye per diya gaya tha, ka bainama dauran nigrani kar diya hai jabki sabhi ansh sammalit hai aur is aadhar per vadigan ka vaad nirast kiya jane yogya hai. Yeh bainama 25.9.2009 ko kiya hai taha nirnyaya adi bhi nahi darshya hai.”

6. On 28.10.2009, objection filed on behalf of the contesting respondents to amendment application moved by petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment in written statement.

7. By order dated 7.12.2009, Additional District Judge Court No. 5 Sitapur rejected application for amendment holding therein that alleged amendment is not necessary for adjudicating and deciding dispute involved in the matter and further held that the same moved in order to delay in proceedings of the matter filed in the year 1992 hence, the present writ petition filed thereby challenging the order dated 7.12.2009.

8. Sri S.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that order dated 7.12.2009 passed by respondent No. 1 is illegal and suffers from error causing injuries to the petitioner and is also contrary to law as laid down by the Apex Court that while considering the amendment in written statement the Court should extremely liberal and should allow the same.

9. He further submits that the fact which sought to be brought by way of amendment is subsequent event taken place on 25.9.2009 when the part of the premises in dispute sold by the contesting respondents as such in view of the said fact amendment should be allowed so order passed by the Court below thereby rejecting petitioners’ application for amendment is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, Sri S.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments :

(1) Ramdeo Upadhya v. Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram, Saidpur, District Ghazipur and another, 1996(4) LCD 141.

(2) Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another, 2002 (20) LCD 1186.

(3) Baldev Singh and others Etc. v. Manohar Singh and another, 2006 (24) LCD 1705.

10. Sri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for contesting respondents submits that the execution of sale-deed during the pendency of the matter in question by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and others is a transfer pendente-lite and would not effect the rights of the petitioners and sale-deed is subject matter of decree passed in revision, further as entire property has not been sold and only a portion of the property sold by the