Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Mahtab Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Rama Goyal Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Ms. Rama Goyal Bansal has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of all the respondents which is taken on record.

3. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.9.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnore in SCC Revision No. 29 of 2011 (Mohammad Akbar v. Shahina Khatoon and others), by which the petitioner’s application No. 80(c), seeking amendment in the written statement, has been rejected on various grounds.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application on the ground of delay. In his submissions, the court ought to have addressed itself on the merit of the amendment application, instead of throwing the same on the ground of delay. He also submits that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, therefore, also the court below has erred in passing the impugned order. In his submissions, the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of the relevant provisions of law as well as facts involved therein. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank NV and others, AIR 2007 SC 2511 and B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai, (2001 (1) ARC 5).

5. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned court below has not rejected the amendment application only on the ground of delay, but it has also considered the merit of the amendment application. In her submissions, for allowing the amendment application, the ingredients of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’) has to be satisfied and here, in this case, nothing has been said about not amending the written statement earlier when the suit was pending before the court below or even in revision, which was filed in the year 2011, whereas the amendment has been sought in the year 2014. She also submits that in the another case, in which the petitioner was defendant, he has admitted this fact that the shop in dispute is outside the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, by way of amendment, the petitioner wants to withdraw his admission, which has been taken note of by the learned court below while deciding the issue No. 2, which was framed for ascertaining as to whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable with respect to the shop in dispute or not. She also submits that at the revisional stage, amendment in the written statement cannot be sought as the revisional court’s jurisdiction is different then the appellate court’s jurisdiction. It is also contended that the petitioner wants to delay the proceedings of the revision as earlier, on 27.5.2014, an amendment application was filed and the same was rejected by the revisional court. Against the afreosaid order, the petitioner has filed Writ A No. 40587 of 2014 (Mohd. Akbar v. Smt. Shahina Khatoon and others) and when the aforesaid case was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner was not present and no order could be passed by the Court. However, it was observed that the pendency of the writ petition would not mean that there is any stay of impugned order or of the proceedings of the case pending before the court below.

6. The submission is that this way or that way, the defendant-petitioner is not allowing the court to decide the revision on merit.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and considered their submissions.

8. The facts giving rise to this case are that a suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner impleading him as a defendant before the Judge, Small Causes Court for payment of arrears of rent, taxes and damages for use and occupation of th