The main legal point established is that a liberal approach should be adopted in considering amendments to written statements, especially when the proposed amendments are legal in nature and would not prejudice the opposing party.

Mahendra Dayal, J.

Both the aforesaid SCC Revisions arise out of the same SCC Suit No.10 of 2007 and are also between the same parties, therefore, for the sake of convenience both the SCC Revisions are being taken up together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. SCC Revision No.117 of 2015 has been preferred by the revisionist-tenant against the order dated 19.09.2015, whereby his application for amendment of the written statement has been rejected. SCC Revision No.101 of 2015 has also been preferred by the revisionist-tenant against the order dated 09.09.2015, whereby his application C-37 moved under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act for return of the plaint, has been dismissed.

3. I have heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan on behalf of the revisionist and Sri Rajeev Kumar Tripathi appearing on behalf of the contesting opposite party-landlord.

4. Since both the revisions arise out of different orders, therefore, both the matters are being dealt with separately.

5. The facts of the case in brief are that opposite party Smt. Champa Devi filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the revisionist-tenant inter alia on the ground that the revisionist tenant was in arrears of rent and in spite of having received a notice of demand, he did not pay the arrears of rent and as such his tenancy stood terminated and he was liable to be evicted by means of a decree of ejectment. The revisionist-tenant filed his written statement and also moved an application for return of the plaint under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Acts. The revisionist-tenant in his written statement denied his status as tenant and pleaded that the opposite party-landlady was not the owner of the premises in question and the revisionist-tenant has never been her tenant at any point of time. He denied having any arrears of rent due from him. It appears that the opposite party-landlady filed replication to the written statement filed by the revisionist-tenant and stated therein that the land upon which the disputed shop exits, was purchased by her husband on 02.02.1957. After filing of the replication by the opposite party-landlady, an application for amendment of the written statement was moved by the revisionist-tenant seeking addition of certain new legal pleas. By means of the amendment the revisionist-tenant wanted to add a new para taking defence to the effect that the sale-deed filed by the opposite party landlady dated 02.02.1957 was in respect of a Bhumidhari land, therefore, the Court of Small Causes have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of a Bhumidhari land. The revisionist-tenant also sought a new ground to his defence that no declaration has yet been made as required under section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and as such in the absence of such declaration, the disputed land would be deemed as Bhumidhari land and for this reason also the suit was not maintainable. The suit was, therefore, barred by Section 156 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.Act and was liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

6. The opposite party land lady filed a detailed objection against the amendment application and it was stated by her that the evidence of the parties has already commenced and no reason has been shown as to why these amendments were not sought by the revisionist tenant earlier. The Hon'ble High Court has directed to dispose of the S.C.C. Suit within a period of six months and the revisionist tenant wants to keep the matter pending on one pretext or the other. The opposite party land lady is a widow woman having no issue and taking advantage of this fact the revisionist tenant wants to grab the property in dispute.

7. The learned court below by means of the impugned order dated 19.09.2015 dismissed the amendment application on the ground that the trial has already commenced and there is a direction of the Hon'ble High Court to decide the case expeditiously, t