Matru Lal vs Suraj Pal
2010 Latest Caselaw 1160 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                             Date of Reserve: February 23, 2010
                                                 Date of Order: March 02, 2010
+ CM(M) 1649/2007
%                                                                    02.03.2010
     Matru Lal                                                ...Petitioner
     Through: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate

       Versus

       Suraj Pal                                                  ...Respondent
       Through:     nemo


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


       JUDGMENT

1. By this petition, petitioner has assailed an order dated 27.08.2007 passed

by learned Civil Judge, whereby learned Civil Judge allowed an application under

Order 6 Rule 17 made by the respondent for amendment of written statement.

2. The petitioner filed a suit before the Civil judge, reclaiming possession

from the respondent of a room, on the grounds that respondent was a licensee

of the petitioner in that room. The defence taken by the respondent was that he

was a tenant in the room and the suit filed by the petitioner was not

maintainable in view of Delhi Rent Control Act. Respondent, after framing of

issues and when the case at the stage of evidence, moved an application for

CM(M) 1649/2007 Matru Lal v. Suraj Pal Page 1 Of 2 amendment in written statement, so as to incorporate certain more facts

reflecting that he was a tenant and not a licensee. The learned trial court

considered the amendments sought by the respondent and observed that

respondent was very much having the knowledge of the facts which he wanted

to incorporate by way of amendments and should have been more diligent while

filing the written statement initially, but had allowed the amendment of written

statement subject to costs on the ground that the amendments were only

explanatory in the nature and no new defence was raised by the defendant.

3. It is settled law that this Court while exercising power under Article 227,

does not act as a Court of Appeal and the power under Article 227 cannot be

exercised to correct a mistake of law or a mistake of facts committed by the

court below; and powers are to be exercised only in those cases where the trial

court exceeded its jurisdiction; or failed to exercise its jurisdiction; or passed an

order which was palpable contrary to the settled legal propositions.

4. I consider that present petition under Article 227 was not maintainable, as

trial court had exercised its jurisdiction within the bound of law and it is not a

case of exceeding jurisdiction. The petition is hereby dismissed.

March 02, 2010                                  SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ashish




CM(M) 1649/2007     Matru Lal v. Suraj Pal           Page 2 Of 2