Point of Law : Post amendment in Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, which was brought in the year 2002, the party seeking amendment has to adhere to the proviso while making an application in case of commencement of trial.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri A.P.Tewari, learned counsel for the revisionists. No one has appeared for the opposite parties however, a written argument was filed by Sri Manu Khare, Advocate, on behalf of opposite parties.

2. The present revision filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1887”) against judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 passed by Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-II (Constituted under 14th Finance Scheme), Gorakhpur, dismissing amendment application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC in S.C.C. Suit No.41 of 2014.

3. Before adverting to decide the issue raised, a brief introduction of facts is necessary for better appreciation of the controversy in hand.

4. A lease agreement was executed on 03.11.2009 between the plaintiffs-revisionists and Exide Industries Ltd., defendant No.1 in respect of premises at Narayan Complex, Plot No.A-28, Budha Vihar Commercial Yojana, Deoria Bypass, Gorakhpur, U.P., measuring 2600 sq.ft., the owner of which is the plaintiffs-revisionists and was let out for a period of five years w.e.f. 01.11.2009 to 31.10.2014 to the lessee/ opposite party No.1 on a monthly rent of Rs.39,000/-. According to the plaintiff, after expiry of lease, the defendant was required to deliver vacant possession of premises but he failed to deliver the same and thus the plaintiff was entitled for damages for use and occupation of premises at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per day in addition to monthly agreed rent. S.C.C. Suit No.41 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff claiming relief for decree of Rs.1,25,000/-against defendant and a decree for the amount of damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,000/-per day besides monthly rent of Rs.47,000/-. The aforesaid suit was filed on 10.12.2014. The defendant appeared and filed written statement stating therein that they had refused to extend the lease agreement, as requested by the plaintiff, and had partly removed their goods, which included batteries and inverters by 26.10.2014 and rest of the goods was to be removed before the terms of lease agreement came to an end but the revisionist came to the premises on 26.10.2014 and started abusing employees of the lessee-defendant No.1, which forced them to run away from the premises. Thereafter, the lock was put illegally by the revisionists on the premises. According to the defendant, stock of batteries and office furnitures etc. were still lying inside the premises. Further, the defendant filed an application being Paper No.23-Ga challenging the jurisdiction of Court to entertain the plaint on the ground that it was limited only for recovery of interest in such property and there being no determination of tenancy nor prayer for eviction from the premises in question was made. Thus, in view of Section 15 read with Article 4 of Schedule II of Act, 1887, the suit was not maintainable. The said application was contested and an objection was filed by the revisionist on 08.10.2015 being Paper No.26-Ga. The said application was rejected on 18.01.2016 against which a S.C.C. Revision No.82 of 2016 was filed, which is still pending. Further, proceedings of Suit No.41 of 2014 continued and issues were framed on 24.12.2016. Issue No.8 was decided on 07.02.2017 while issue No.9 was decided on 03.03.2017. Evidence of PW-1 (plaintiff/revisionist) was completed and in his statement recorded on 10.05.2017, he had submitted that no other evidence will be submitted by him.

5. On 11.12.2018, an amendment application was filed by plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C., being paper No.59Ka/2 by which he has sought amendment in relief clause seeking arrears of rent from 01.11.2014 to 31.10.2018 and also sought eviction from property in dispute. The amendment application was contested by the defendant by filing objection, Paper no.61Ga/1. The Court below vide judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 rejected the amendment application hence the present revision.

6.