An amendment to pleadings in a summary suit must be essential for determining the real controversy between the parties. Where an amendment is extraneous to the core issues and intended to unnecessarily delay litigation, the court is justified in exercising its discretion to reject it.

The instant civil revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (“the Act”) against the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/Ist Additional District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Case No.14 of 2024, Smt. Sarita Gupta vs. Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta, whereby, the amendment application filed by the defendant has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The plaintiff/respondent herein had filed SCC Case No.14 of 2024 before the Judge, Small Cause Court titled as Smt. Sarita Gupta vs. Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta for arrears of rent, ejectment and mense profit, inter alia, on the grounds that plaintiff had purchased the property/three shops through two sale deeds dated 29.03.2022 situated at New Property No.15, Dilaram Bazaar, Rajpur Road (No.52, Rajpur Road), Dehradun; the defendant/revisionist herein had been in occupation of one shop of the said property at a monthly tenancy of Rs.2500/- per month; defendant has not paid the rent since the year 2018; the property is in dilapidated condition and the plaintiff/respondent herein had received notice dated 17.05.2022 from Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, under Section 331(1) of the Nagar Nigam Adhiniyam, 1959 to demolish the said property; defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the property.

4. The defendant/revisionist herein had filed written statement denying the plaint allegations inter alia on the grounds that defendant is not in arrears of rent; in the year 2018 previous owner Shri Radhey Lal had stopped taking rent from the defendant/revisionist herein then Misc. Case No.246 of 2019, Shravan Kumar Vs. Radhey Lal, under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Dehradun, which was decided on 06.12.2021; defendant/revisionist herein had tendered the rent in Rent Misc. No.246 of 2019 of the shop/property till March, 2024, thereafter notices were issued to plaintiff on 14.02.2024 and rent for the period commencing from April, 2024 to May, 2025 was sent through Cheque No.330398 dated 12.09.2024 of Karnataka Bank Ltd. to plaintiff; the property/building is not in a dilapidated condition and the notice by Nagar Palika is manipulated.

5. During the pendency of the aforesaid SCC suit, the defendant/revisionist herein had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement inter alia on the ground that plaintiff has demolished the building except the shop under the tenancy and occupation of the defendant; plaintiff has got sanctioned a map/plan for shopping complex; plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit just to harass the defendant, there is no need of the shop to the plaintiff as he intended to built shopping complex in it. The proposed amendments seeking to add following paras after Para 30 read as under:-

“30A. That during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff has demolished the building except the Shop under the tenancy and occupation of the Defendant.

30B. That the Defendant has come across the Plan sanctioned by the authority in the name of Sarita Gupta; said plan numbered as C/0598/22-23, Dated 21/04/2023 and in light of the said Plan, plaintiff has come up with the Shopping Complex.

30C. That the property under the tenancy of the Defendant does not create any hindrance or hampers the view and the look of Shopping Complex and the ingress and egress to the Shopping Complex build by the plaintiff.

30D. That the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid Suit only to harass the Defendant as there is no need of the Shop to