Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Matter is taken in revised cause list.

2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. Heard Sri Q.M. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.7.2010 (Annexure 1) passed by opposite party No. 1/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Gonda and the order dated 4.1.2010 passed by opposite party No. 2/Civil Judge(Senior Division) by which petitioner’s revision as well as application for amendment was dismissed.

5. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that on 31.5.1996 plaintiff/respondents filed a Regular Suit No. 290 of 1996 (Ram Sahai Purwar and others v. Piyara Devi and others) for permanent injunction. On 28.4.1999 defendant/petitioner filed a written statement.

6. Thereafter defendant No. 2/Shanti Devi moved an application for amendment under order 6 Rule 17 read with 171 CPC, registered as paper No. 34 Ga, rejected by order dated 4.1.2010 passed by opposite party No. 2/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda.

7. Aggrieved by the said fact, petitioner/defendant/Shanti Devi filed Revision No. 29 of 2010 (Smt. Shanti Devi v. Ram Sahai and others), dismissed by order dated 24.7.2010 passed by opposite party No. 1/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Gonda.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that the Court below has erred in rejecting the application for amendment, as the same is nothing but amounts to clarification of certain pleadings which were pleaded on behalf of the defendant in written statement. The said plea has been further pressed by Sri Q.M. Haque, learned counsel for petitioner by raising arguments to the effect that the amendment as sought is clarificatory in nature so the same may be allowed.

9. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments given by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh and others etc. v. Manohar Singh and another etc., 2006(3) ARC 253 and by this Court in the case of Dharam Chand Pandey v. District Judge, Faizabad and others, 2010 (28) LCD 532. Accordingly, it is submitted by Sri Q.M. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order being contrary to law, liable to be set aside.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, the admitted position which emerge out in the present case is to the effect that a suit for permanent for injunction has been filed by plaintiff/respondents on 31.5.1996 and thereafter on 28.4.1999 written statement has been filed by the defendant.

11. On 13.8.1999 on behalf of defendant No. 2 /Smt. Shanti Devi an application for amendment (paper No. 34 Ga) under order 6 Rule 17 read with 171 CPC has been moved, the same was rejected by order dated 4.1.2010 passed by opposite party No. 2/Civil Judge(Senior Division) Gonda with the following findings :

Þmlds }kjk ÁLrqr 98 d tckcnkck dk Lo:i cny tk jgk gS vkSj blds ckn dh ÁÑfr Hkh cny jgh gS ftlls oknh dks cpko esa tks ykHk ÁkIr gks jgk gS] ;fn mDr la'kks/ku ÁkFkZuk i= Lohdkj dj fy;k tkrk gS rks oknh dh {kfriwfrZ gtsZ ls ugha djkbZ tk ldrh gSA ÁkfFkZuh 'kkafr nsoh viuh LohÑfr;ka ls ihNs gV jgh gSa o la'kks/ku ÁkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha ik;k tk jgk gSAÞ

12. And revision filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by order dated 24.7.2010 passed by opposite party No. 1/Additional District Judge Court No. 6, Gonda, the relevant portion is quoted as under :

Þvr% fu%lansg ÁLrkfor la'kks/ku ls tokc nsus dk Lo:i cny tkrk gSA vxj nj[kkLr rjehe dk@341 Lohdkj dh x;h] rks vR;kfèkd iqjkus eqdnesa dh iwjh uo?S;r gh cny tk,xhA iqu% fljs ls nksuksa i{k vius fy, lk{; vkSj cpko ds eqn~ns ryk'k djuk ÁkjEHk dj nsaxsA ,slk la'kks/ku vuqfpr gSA vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Á'uxr vkns'k fof/k lEer ikfjr fd;k gSA Á'uxr vkns'k v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA vr% ÁLrqr fuxjkuh esa eSa cy ugha irk gw¡A fuxjkuh fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSAÞ

13. On the point in issue Hon’ble t