ORDER
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. By means of this petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7-2-2004 passed by respondent No. 1 in civil suit No. 26 of 2003.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that a civil suit No. 26 of 2003 was instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2 for . permanent injunction restraining the defendant (respondent No. 2) from interfering In peaceful possession of the plaintiff (petitioner). In the plaint of said unit-the petitioner had claimed herself to be tenant of the respondent No. 2 on rent at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month. It is alleged that the petitioner moved an application for amendment (copy Annexure-2) in the plaint, whereby she sought to plead rate of rent to be Rs. 1,650/- per month in place of Rs. 3000/- per month. Simultaneously valuation of suit is sought to be corrected accordingly. The learned trial Court after hearing the objections of the other party, rejected the application for amendment vide its order dated 7-2-2004, aggrieved by which the present petition has been filed.
3. A short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, whereby it has been stated that she has instituted another suit before the Court of Judge Small Causes (District Judge, Nainital) for eviction of the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the rate of rent, mentioned by the respondent No. 2, is Rs. 3000/-in said suit. It is further stated in para No. 7 of the counter affidavit that in exchange of notices also the rate of rent is mentioned to be Rs. 3000/- per month. Defending the impugned order, it is stated that the amendment in question was sought by the petitioner only to adversely affect the case of the respondent No. 2 and was not bona fide.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, along with the annexures annexed thereto.
5. Before further discussions it is pertinent to mention here the Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as it exists today :-
“17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
6. The above amended rule came into force with effect from 1st of July, 2002. The present application is admittedly moved thereafter. Now this Court has to see if the rejection of the amendment sought is against law or not. My attention was drawn on behalf of the petitioner to the principle of law laid down in Pankaja v. Yellappa, 2004 AIR SCW 4522 : AIR 2004 SC 4102; B.K. Narayanana Pillai v. Parameshwaran Pillai, 2000 ACJ 623, Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National. Building; AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1267 and Panchdeo Narairi v. Jyoti, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 462, and it is argued that the Court should have allowed the amendment and it should not have been rejected for technical reasons. The principle of law laid-down in all the above case laws do riot help the petitioner as the perusal of the impugned order shows that the proposed amendment moved by the plaintiff-petitioner was not bona fide. The detailed reasons have been discussed In the impugned order for coming to the conclusion that the proposed amendment was not bona fide as not only the plaintiff wanted to retreat from the admitted rate of rent but also wanted to change the consequential valuation of the suit etc. The impugned amendment neither appears to be a clerical mistake nor a development which has taken place during the pendency of suit and nor it relates to explaining the existing facts.
7. Apart from this, the determination of rate of rent is not the material question to be decided in the injunction suit, as such the same can not be said to be covered under Rule 17 of Order 6 of the above Code. Not only this, the submission made before the trial Court as mentioned in the impugned order, shows that the valuation of suit was intentionally raised by the plaintiff to institute the suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) for the reason that Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was vacant. Learned trial Court has rightly rejected the submission on the ground that there was a link Officer of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the submission is lame excuse. Even if that submission is accepted, the stand taken by the plaintiff-petitioner that by mistake she has mentioned the rate of rent Rs. 3000/-, appears to be wrong.
As such the proposed amendment certainly appears to be mala fide as found by the learned trial Court.
8. In exercise of supervisory/revisional jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the opinion that since the impugned order neither suffers from the jurisdictional error nor any other illegality, as such the same cannot be interfered with.
9. In the circumstances, in view of above discussion, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order dated 29-6-2004 is vacated.
