Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for respondent.

2. Sri Dayal, learned counsel for respondent stated at the bar that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the matter may be heard and decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court on the basis of material on record. Accordantly, I proceed to decide this case at this stage finally with the consent of learned counsels for parties under the Rules of the Court.

3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Saharanpur dismissing petitioner’s SCC Revision No. 56 of 2011 and confirming Trial Court’s order dated 26.9.2011 passed in SCC Suit No. 60 of 2001 allowing Application No. 98-C of the plaintiff-respondent permitting an amendment in the plaint on the ground that such amendment would not change the nature of the suit and, therefore, can be accepted on payment of a cost of Rupees one hundred.

4. The facts giving rise to the present dispute, in brief, are that plaintiff-respondent filed Small Cause Suit No. 60 of 2001 against the petitioner-defendant, Suraj P