1992 Supreme(MP) 665

V.S. Kokje, J.
Ramchandra v. Smt.lndarabai
C.R. No. 204 of 1989 (I); Decided on 15.10.1992*.

Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 9, R. 9 -- suit restored with consent of defendant-no grievance can be made against restoration of suit.

        (2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.20, R.l and O. 6, R.17 -- case fixed for pronouncing the judgment -- no application for amendment or for any other cause lies.

        (3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.6, R. 17 -- application for amendment filed for delaying the case-d`rightly rejected.

        ¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 9] fu- 9 & okn izfroknh dh lgefr ls izR;kofrZr & okn ds izR;korZu ds fo#) dksbZ f‘kdk;r ugha dh tk ldrhA

        ¼2½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 20] fu- 1 rFkk vk- 6] fu- 17 & fu.kZ; lqukus ds fy, ekeyk fu;r fd;k x;k & la‘kks/ku vFkok dksbZ vU; dkj.k ds fy, dksbZ vkosnu ugha gksxkA

        ¼3½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 6] fu- 17 & ekeyk foyafcr djus ds fy, la‘kks/ku dk vkosnu Qkby fd;k x;k & Bhd vx`ghr fd;k x;kA

        It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that there is material on record to demonstrate the malafides of the land lady. According to the applicant, the rent was Rs. 701- earlier which was enhanced to Rs. 100/- and because of this on 6.3.84 having reached an understanding with the tenant the land lady got the application dismissed in default. However she malafide made an application for restoration and the suit was restored after over a year. According to the applicant-tenant, the land lady is residing in Ratlam and is not Li"Ving with her daughter. It has also been contended that the Rent Controlling Authority had in a similar case allowed an application under order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. but, had rejected application in this case without any reason. The order of restoration of the case has also been challenged.

        Held : Having heard the learned counsel I do not find any force in this revision application The order of restoration of the case states that the case was being restored with the consent of the tenant. This statement in the proceedings has not been challenged in the case. If, the restoration had not been ordered without consent of the applicant, immediately after the proceedings were restarted, he could have raised objection in writing. He does not appear to have taken that course. He cannot now be heard in this revision against the order of restoration.

        So far as the amendment is concerned, the record shows that after several dates in the case on which no progress could be made in the case, the case was closed for orders and on the day on which the order was to be pronounced, the application under order 6, Rule 17 was moved on behalf of the tenant. It is settled law, once the case is closed for orders, no application could be moved in between Besides, the amendment sought was not based on some concrete evidence of any subsequent event. It was attempted to be alleged that on 19.7.89 that is about a week prior to the making of the application, the land lady had entered into an agreement for sale of the house with another tenant- Shri Rajnarayan Kappor. The circumstances in which the application was made permitted an inference to be drawn that the application was made only to delay the proceedings further and the Rent Controlling Authority has taken that view. So far as the merits are concerned, it is not for this Court to re-appreciate the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Rent Controller has given clear and cogent findings and has given cogent reasons for arriving at them. In these, circumstances, this revision application has no· force and is, therefore, dismissed.