The court clarified that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not apply strictly in revisional proceedings, emphasizing that amendments introducing new factual assertions and withdrawing admissions are impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted to assail the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Revision No. 130 of 2024 ( Munni Devi vs. Shashikala ), whereby the application (Paper No. 29-G) moved by the petitioner-revisionist under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the grounds of revision has been rejected.

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present proceedings is required to be noticed in some detail. SCC Suit No. 190 of 2013 was instituted by the respondent-landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner-defendant, along with recovery of arrears of rent, taxes and damages. The said suit came to be decreed on 29.02.2024 by the Court of Small Causes. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, who was the defendant in the suit, preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 130 of 2024. The revisional court dismissed the revision on 07.11.2024. The said revisional order was challenged before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and this Court, upon finding that the order suffered from non-application of mind, set aside the same and remanded the matter to the revisional court for fresh decision in accordance with law.

4. During the pendency of the revision after remand, the petitioner moved an application (Paper No. 29-G) seeking amendment of the grounds taken in the memorandum of revision, which came to be rejected by order dated 01.03.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner again approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and this Court, upon noticing that the revisional order was bereft of reasons, set aside the same and directed the revisional court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

5. The amendment application was opposed by the respondent-landlord by filing objections (Paper No. 31-G supported by affidavit 32-G), contending, inter alia, that the proposed amendments were wholly belated, contrary to the clear admissions made by the petitioner in the reply to notice as well as in the written statement, and amounted to re- agitating issues which had already been rejected in earlier proceedings. It was specifically urged that similar pleas had earlier been sought to be introduced by way of amendment before the trial court, which application stood rejected up to the revisional stage and is stated to be the subject matter of proceedings under Article 227 before this Court. It was further contended that the present attempt is nothing but an effort to withdraw binding admissions and to introduce entirely new and inconsistent pleas at a highly belated stage, thereby causing serious prejudice to the respondent.

6. A close scrutiny of the amendment application discloses that the petitioner sought to introduce four additional grounds labelled "A", "B", "C" and "D". These proposed grounds, though framed as grounds of revision, were in substance not confined to raising legal submissions but sought to fundamentally alter the nature of the defence. Ground "A" alleged that the trial court had misappreciated the pleadings in treating the petitioner as a tenant and had failed to properly consider denial of ownership. Ground "B" sought to challenge the validity of the notice dated 13.09.2013 terminating the tenancy. Ground "C" asserted that the structure in dispute had not bee