The court upheld the Deputy Director of Consolidation's decision to allow amendment applications, emphasizing that such amendments do not adversely affect the rights of the opposing parties and are necessary for clarity in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for private respondent nos. 3, 9 and 10 as well as learned standing counsel for State respondents no. 1 and 2.

2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 5.6.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No.0111 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. 2021531653000111) reversing the order dated 7.10.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No.63 of 2021, whereby two impleadment/amendment applications dated 18.2.2020 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed on behalf of the contesting respondents in objections under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity UPCH Act) has been rejected.

3. The facts culled out from the record are that two separate objections dated 11.05.2018 (Annexure Nos. 2 & 3) under Sections 9A(2) of the UPCH Act have been filed by Trishul and Basant Lal & two others including Trishul, respectively viz. (i) Basant Lal and two others vs. Kanhaiya Lal and others and (ii) Trishul vs. Kanhaiya Lal and other. At a later stage, Basant Lal & seven others including previous three applicants have filed another objection dated 29.9.2018 (Annexure No. 4) under Section 9A(2) of the UPCH Act in the nature of supplementary objection. Similarly, Trishul has filed another objection dated 28.10.2018 (Annexure No. 5) under Section 9A(2) of the UPCH Act as well in the nature of a supplementary objection. The opposite parties in proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the UPCH Act (petitioner herein) have raised objection qua maintainability of the subsequent objection dated 29.09.2018 and 28.10.2018 filed under Section 9A(2) of the UPCH Act. In response thereto, Trishul and Basant Lal & two others have filed two separate applications dated 17.12.2019, respectively, with the prayer that their first objection dated 11.5.2018 may be treated as a main objection and subsequent objection may be treated as a supplementary objection. After due contest, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 11.2.2020 (Annexure No. 8), has rejected both applications dated 17.12.2019 and negated the subsequent objections on the grounds that it would promote multiplicity of proceedings, however, permitted to file amendment application if they wants to explain/clarify their case. The order dated 11.2.2020 passed by the Consolidation Officer became final between the parties, inasmuch as same has not been assailed before any competent court. In light of the order dated 11.2.2020, the contesting respondents Basant Lal & two others and Trishul have filed separate amendment applications dated 18.2.2020 (collectively filed a Annexure No. 9) under Order I Rule 10(2) read with under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, proposing amendment in their respective objections dated 11.5.2018 filed under Section 9A(2) of the UPCH Act. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 7.10.2021, has rejected both the amendment applications dated 18.2.2020. The Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'DDC'), on revision being filed on behalf of Trishul assailing the order dated 7.10.2021, has quashed the order dated 7.10.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer and allowed the amendment application dated 18.2.2020, vide its order dated 5.6.2024, which is currently under challenge before this court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while passing the order impugned, the DDC did not clarify as to which amendment application is allowed as the revision was filed only by Trishul. It is next submitted that the reasoning given by the Consolidation Officer in rejecting the amendment application was neither considered nor reversed by the revisional court. No justifiable reasons are assigned for moving an amendment application, therefore, unless there is a necessity to amend the pleadings, the amendment application