Judgment · High Court

Shri Narayan Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sharad Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.03.2009, passed by Additional District Judge, in S.C.C. revision No. 18 of 2008, whereby amendment application, moved by the revisionist is rejected. the parties and revisional Heard learned counsel perused impugned order dated 27.03.2009 and application dated 27.03.2009, moved on behalf of the to have been revisionist/petitioner. A suit appears instituted by respondent No.1 (landlord) against his tenant (present petitioner), who has filed a revision court. The before 27.03.2009, is moved by the tenant (revisionist) in the the amendment revision. The question application, defendant/revisionist/petitioner before revisional court is misconceived, as the amendments allowed by the trail court vide its order dated 09.09.2008 in S.C.C. suit No. 12 of 1994, itself are under challenged before the revisional court. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the amendment application, moved by the revisionist before the revisional court was bonafide. application raised In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, with the impugned order dated 27.03.2009, passed by revisional court. Therefore, the petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that the court below shall proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible. S (P.C.P., J.) Dt. 14.05.2009