JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Shri Anadi Krishna Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel under the authority of Shri Pavan Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the caveator/respondents.

2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being finally decided at the admission stage itself.

3. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26.9.2023 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 22, Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 37 of 2023 (Karam Chandra Kushwaha and others vs. Lala Ram and others) whereby the Civil Revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 4.2.2023 of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Court No. 16, Allahabad has been dismissed and the order dated 4.2.2023 rejecting the Amendment Application (Paper No. 132-A) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been upheld.

4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the controversy involved in the instant petition, briefly stated, are that an original suit, being Original Suit No. 433 of 2000 (Ram Sajeevan Kushwaha versus Heera Lal) was instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners against Heera Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents claiming a relief of permanent injunction and demolition. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff/ Ram Sajeevan expired and the present petitioners were substituted in his place. Likewise, the sole defendant Heera Lal also expired and his sons Lala Ram and Purushottam Lal were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives. A family settlement/compromise was entered into between the petitioners and the heirs of Heera Lal i.e. Lala Ram and Purushottam Lal on 25.12.2019 and the same was also reduced in writing. Meanwhile, Purushottam Lal expired and his heirs i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were brought on record. The petitioners filed the compromise as evidence by means of an application (Paper No. 114 Ga). The trial Court vide order dated 14.3.2022 took on record the compromise numbered as Paper No. 115 C. The petitioners sought to amend the plaint of the Original Suit No. 433 of 2000 incorporating the factum of the compromise entered between the parties and also amend the prayer clause accordingly. The amendment application dated 8.12.2022 was registered as Paper No. 132A. The respondents filed their objections to the amendment application.

5. The learned Trial Court vide its order dated 04.02.2023 rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioners being of the view that the application had been moved after considerable delay and after the evidence of the parties had closed and the suit was proceeding at the stage of hearing and no plausible explanation had been given for the delay that had occasioned.

6. The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2023 preferred a civil revision, being Civil Revision No. 37 of 2023 before the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 22, Allahabad. The learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 22, Allahabad has rejected the Civil Revision upholding the findings of the Trial Court.

7. Sri Anadi Krishna Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that both the Trial Court as also the Revisional Court manifestly erred in law in rejecting the amendment application on the ground that it had been preferred after considerable delay in as much as an amendment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay. He submits that the compromise was entered into between the parties in December, 2019. Soon after the compromise the entire Nation was ravaged by the COVID-19 Pandemic and judicial proceedings in Courts were largely affected. The compromise was brought on record by way of an application dated 18.02.2022 which was taken on record by the Trial Court vide order dated 14.03.2022. The amendment application was preferred on 08.12.2022. There was no inordinate delay. It is also contended that the stat