IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the court should exercise its discretion in allowing amendments to pleadings, and failure to consider the amendments sought may result in the court not properly exercising its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

1. Heard Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. This revision has been filed by the defendants/revisionists against the judgment and order dated 28.07.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur rejecting the application Paper No. 56-Ka for amendment in written statement, moved by the defendants/revisionists.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents instituted Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 against the defendants/revisionists for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit not to interfere with the property of the plaintiffs/respondents and also restraining the defendants from interfering with the construction of the wall by the plaintiffs/respondents.

4. Plaint allegations as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff no. 1 is a partnership firm having its properties in village Bartara Tehsil Sadar District Saharanpur which has been described by letters v c l n ; j y d £ x p N t > ´] The defendant/revisionist nos. 1 & 2 were silent partners and had taken retirement from the firm and thereafter the plaintiffs/respondents became full owner of the property of firm. There was some dispute as to the accounts of the firm which was settled by Sri Sanjay Saxena (Chartered Accountant) who was appointed as sole arbitrator with consent of the parties by means of decision dated 14.11.2020. Defendants/revisionists were interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents in the suit by which they had no right and therefore, the present suit.

5. The suit was filed on 08.02.2021. From the perusal of the record, it appears that on 08.02.2021, the court below issued notices to the defendants/revisionists fixing 15.03.2021. On 02.04.2021, objections, written statement Paper No. 19-Ka and affidavit Paper No. 20-Ka was filed on behalf of defendants/revisionists through their counsel Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra and next date fixed was 19.04.2021. On 03.09.2021, an application for amendment in the plaint was moved by the plaintiffs/respondents for addition of relief of declaration that the plaintiffs were owner of the property in dispute. The aforesaid application was allowed by the court by order dated 04.10.2021. On 30.11.2021, it was stated by counsel appearing for the defendants/revisionists that defendants/revisionists would not file any additional written statement. On 21.12.2021, issues were framed. An application Paper No. 33-C was moved by the defendants/respondents through counsel Sri Sazid Ali Khan, Advocate under Order 3 Rule 4 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with the allegation that the defendants/revisionists engaged Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate had got signatures of defendants/revisionists on blank paper. The counsel never informed the defendants/revisionists that written statement or objection had to be filed on behalf of defendants/revisionists. The written statement and objections which had been filed on their behalf by Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate was never read over to the defendants/revisionists and nor the same were filed after informing the defendants/revisionists. The counsel also did not inform about the amendment application and of its own learned counsel made an endorsement that no additional written statement would be filed by the defendants/revisionists of which permission was never given by the defendants/revisionists to the counsel Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. It was also stated in the aforesaid application that the defendants/revisionists had disengaged Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate as he had acted against the interest of the defendants/revisionists. It was further stated that Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra had filed written statement in collusion with the plaintiffs. Thereafter, an application under Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. was moved by the plaintiffs/respondents. Again an applicati