ORDER :

Manish Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate who has filed his power on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 3. The power is taken on record. It is admitted between learned counsel for parties that opposite parties 2 and 4, though not served, are merely proforma for the purposes of adjudication of present petition which may be heard finally without notices being served upon them. However, it is a relevant fact that earlier vide order dated 26.08.2019, notices had been issued to the said opposite parties and office report dated 04.10.2019 indicates that undelivered notices have not yet been received back indicating service of notice upon opposite parties 2 and 4. However, in terms of explanation to Rule 12 Chapter VIII of the Rules of this Court, service of notices upon opposite parties 2 to 4 is deemed sufficient.

2. Learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 3 states that he is waving his right to file counter affidavit and that the petition may be disposed of on basis of material on record. Due to such statement, the petition is being decided finally at admission stage itself with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. Under challenge is the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by Additional District Judge (PC Act-I), Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014 (Tarun Kumar Srivastava v. Gur Bux Singh and others) whereby Application No. A-146 seeking amendment in the memorandum of appeal has been rejected.

4. As per averments made in the petition, the plaintiffs-opposite parties 1 to 3 instituted Regular Suit No. 56 of 2009 (Gurbux Singh & others v. Smt. Neeta Dua and another) against opposite party no. 4 and the petitioner who were defendants in the said suit, which was filed seeking relief of possession and damages in relation to some property situate at Aishbagh, Lucknow. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 whereafter Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014 (Tarun Kumar Srivastava v. Gur Bux Singh and others) was filed.

5. It has been stated that earlier another Regular Suit No. 222/2002 (M/s. Lala Timber Traders v. Guru Bux Singh) seeking the relief of permanent injunction with regard to the same property in question. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014, i.e. after the judgment and decree passed in Regular Suit No. 56 of 2009.

6. It has been stated that due to the subsequent development, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. in Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014 bringing on record the details of Regular Suit No. 222/2002 along with judgment and decree dated 08.08.2014. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was allowed by means of an order dated 02.05.2018, which became final.

7. Subsequent to allowing of application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., the petitioner filed an application for amendment of memorandum of appeal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2014. The same has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 08.07.2019.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner challenging the reasoning indicated in the impugned order submitted that once application under (sic Order) 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. was allowed and became final, the application seeking to amend memorandum of appeal was but a natural consequence thereof particularly in view of the fact that judgment and decree in Regular Suit No. 222/2002 was passed subsequent to the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014 in Regular Suit No. 56 of 2009. It has been further submitted that only a single ground is sought to be incorporated in memorandum of appeal particularly in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 2 C.P.C. to the effect that no submissions can be advanced or evidence led in absence of specific pleadings for the same.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. repor