Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34301 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2313 of 2025 Petitioner :- Waqi -Ur - Rehman Respondent :- Vijay Kumar Kapoor Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pandey,Faizan Siddiqui Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order passed by the appellate authority in rejecting the misc. application filed seeking amendment in the written statement. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was not the tenant of Vijay Kumar Kapoor rather was a tenant of Dharmendra Mohan Chaudhary who had let out the shop in question and he had paid an advanced security money to him to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- and that the lease was granted for a period of 35 years. It is contended by Mr. Pandey that these pleadings though were raised in paragraph nos. 21 and 22 of the written statement filed in the rent case but he wanted to further elaborate it. I have gone through the pleadings raised in the written statement as well as in the amendment application and I find that the sufficient pleading was taken by the tenant/ petitioner himself in paragraph no. 21 to the effect that he was tenant of one Dharmendra Mohan Chaudhary thus, the petitioner sought to question the title of the landlord. However, upon a pointed query being made as to whether he ever produced Dharmendra Mohan Chaudhary, the alleged land owner, in respect of the pleadings so raised or did he move any application for getting him summoned in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr Pandey very fairly conceded that no effort was made on behalf of his client to produce the Dharmendra Mohan Chaudhary, nor Dharmendra Mohan Chaudhary had come up to file any impleadment application in the case setting up his title. In view of the above, therefore, once the pleading has been raised and the Court of first instance did not find any evidence to substantiate pleadings, any such clarificatory amendment could have been allowed. In the circumstances, when the pleadings were there already on record, the only thing that was required to be done by the petitioner was to lead evidence. He having failed to lead evidence in support of the pleadings raised in the additional pleas of written statement vide paragraph nos. 21 and 22, I do not see any justification for further allowing the amendment at the stage of appeal. In view of the above, I do not find any manifest error in the order passed by the appellate authority in rejecting the amendment application. Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad