When an application for amendment is listed for hearing on specific points, all listed points should be considered before making a decision. A litigant should not suffer due to the fault of their counsel.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Km. Madhurima Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The facts of the case have already been set forth by this Court in detail vide order dated 13.11.2018, which order for convenience, is reproduced as under:-

"Heard.

Issue notice to the respondent returnable at an early date.

Steps be taken within 7 days.

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"1. To set aside/quash the judgment and order dated 13.9.2018 passed by the learned District Judge Lucknow in Civil Revision No.165/2018 (Satish Kumar... Vs... Smt. Kalyani) and the judgment and order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD)/FTC Lucknow on Application for amendment (C-90) in Regular Suit No.249/2007 (Smt. Kalyani Devi ... Vs...Satish Kumar), contained in Annexure Nos.1 and 2 respectively to this petition as well as the order dated 5.5.2018 respectively to this petition as well as the order dated 5.5.2018 passed by the learned District Judge Lucknow in Civil Revision No.88/2018 (Satish Kumar... Vs... Smt. Kalyani) and the order dated 9.4.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD)/FTC Lucknow on Application for amendment (C-89) in Regular Suit No.249/2007 (Smt. Kalyani Devi ... Vs... Satish Kumar), contained in Annexure Nos.9 and 10 respectively to this petition.

2. To pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. Allow this petition with costs."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was preferred by the plaintiff/respondent in the year 2007 and in the said suit judgment had been reserved on 3.2.2018. Thereafter the plaintiff/respondent preferred an application seeking amendment in the plaint by contending that on account of lack of drafting skill of the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, no specific relief could be claimed for recovery of possession from the possession of the defendant/petitioner. A plea has also been raised in paragraph 8 of the amendment application that the said application could not be preferred earlier despite due diligence because the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent was placing reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus it was prayed that the said amendment application be allowed.

The objections were filed on behalf of the defendant/petitioner whereby plea of (a) amendment being filed after a period of almost 10 years, (b) there being no due diligence on the part of the plaintiff/respondent and other objections were also raised. Learned court below by means of the order dated 9.4.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition, allowed the application for taking on record the amendment and thereafter vide order dated 11.7.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) allowed the amendment on payment of Rs.1,000/-as cost. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision No.165 of 2018 which has been dismissed on 13.9.2018. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Samuel and others vs. Gattu Mahesh and others reported in 2012(2) SCC 300 to contend that (a) once the judgment had been reserved by the court below, no such amendment could have been allowed and (b) the plea of the petitioner of there being no due diligence and other pleas so raised were not considered by the courts below while allowing the application for amendment after more than 10 years. It is argued that showing of due diligence is a sine-qua-non for the purpose of allowing said amendment application. It is also argued that the learned court below has passed a very casual order and consequently the said orders are patently bad in the eyes of law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Samuel