JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shantanu Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent.

2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.02.2023 passed by District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, by which, application 27-Ga filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in S.C.C. Revision No. 187 of 2022 was rejected.

3. Since, only legal question is involved in the present petition, therefore, with the consent of parties without inviting for affidavits, petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

4. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The SCC Suit No. 149 of 2015 was filed for ejectment and recovery of damages under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1887’) in which written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant denying the allegations, but accepting the respondent-plaintiff as landlord. The said suit was exparte-decreed vide order dated 08.07.2022. Against the order dated 08.07.2022, petitioner-defendant has filed Revision under Section 25 of Act, 1887 before District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. It is undisputed that petitioner-defendant was a tenant of Pt. Ram Shanker Mishra Trust established by a duly registered trust deed. Case of petitioner-defendant is that on 07.12.20217, trust deed was filed by respondent plaintiff, then petitioner-defendant could know that Sri Uma Shanker Mishra respondent-plaintiff is a forge trustee and fraudulently presenting himself as Sarvarakaar collecting amount of rent also. After knowing this fact, petitioner-defendant has filed application 27-Ga dated 15.12.2022 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in written statement.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), amendment may be sought at any stage of proceeding and it is required on the part of Court concerned to decide the application on merits.

6. He further submitted that in written statement, under bonafide belief, petitioner has accepted the respondent-plaintiff as landlord and he could know about the trust deed only on 07.12.2017, which transpires that respondent is a forged trustee presenting himself as Sarvarakaar and not a landlord. Thereafter in the year 2022, petitioner-defendant has moved application 27-Ga under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in his written statement. It is further submitted that once petitioner-defendant has disputed the ownership/landlordship, it is required on the part of Revisional Court to allow the application and invite objection upon the same, thereafter proceed to decide the case on merits.

7. He next submitted that once respondent-plaintiff is not a landlord, the suit filed by him is not maintainable and it’s a legal issue goes to the roots of the controversy, therefore, it is required on the part of Revisional Court to allow the amendment application even at the revisional stage.

8. It is further submitted that in light of settled provisions of law, Revisional Court must have been very liberal while considering amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for the purpose of substantial justice. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court as well as this Court in the matters of Surendra Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh; 2009 (3) ARC 427, B.K.N. Pillai vs. P. Pillai; Civil Appeal No. 7222-23 of 1999 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14540-14541 of 1999) decided on December 13, 1999, Ganpatlal Gupta and others vs. Additional District Judge, Deoria and others; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50175 of 1999 decided on 21.03.2003 and Kamal Regmi Sharma and others vs. Nepal Bank Limited and others (Civil Revision No. 511 of 1986 decided on 14.10.1986.

9. Sri Shantanu Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent submitted that it is a summary proceeding and after final disposal of suit, no such amendment may be allowed. He further