HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10794 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Petitioner before this Court is the tenant of the accommodation in dispute. The plaintiff respondent had filed SCC Suit No. 14 of 2019 for ejectment and arrears of rent. The defendant petitioner had contested the said suit and filed his written statement. The written statement was amended and paragraph no. 21-A was inserted during pendency of the suit before the trial court. The suit was decreed and orders were passed for ejectment and arrears of rent which has led for filing of SCC Revision No. 57 of 2022. At the stage of final hearing, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was moved by the defendant petitioner in the month of February 2025 for amending the written statement by adding paragraph no. 19-A. Alongwith the said amendment application a map was also enclosed. The application was contested by the plaintiff respondent and counter affidavit was filed wherein in paragraph no. 9 it was stated that there is no firm in the name of Agra Cycle Traders in the proposed map shown by the petitioner as area of godown has already been purchased by the plaintiff respondent. A rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit was filed by petitioner wherein the said fact was not vehemently denied and an evasive reply was filed in paragraph no. 5 of the rejoinder affidavit. The said amendment application has been rejected by the order impugned. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the amendment in the written statement can be made at any stage and it cannot be equated with the facts of the plaint. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Apex Court rendered in case of Usha BalaShaheb Swami and others Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramendra Asthana Counsel for Respondent(s) : Nitin Kumar Agrawal Shanker Lal Hinduja .....Petitioner(s) Manish Agrawal And Another .....Respondent(s) Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, 2007 (5) SCC 602. The relevant paragraph no. 19 is extracted hereasunder; "19. It is equally well-settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable." 3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the proposed amendment is necessary for the adjudication of the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for landlord respondent submits that already written statement was amended once before the trial court when the suit was pending and the present amendment at the revisional stage is only to prolong the litigation and the description of the property, which is being sought, does not exist as two godowns have already been purchased by the respondent apart from the land. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is an admitted case that the tenant defendant has not moved the amendment application for the first time, he had already got his written statement amended during the proceedings before the trial court and paragraph no. 21-A was inserted. This is the second amendment application, which has been moved by the defendant at the stage of final hearing of the revision, which appears to be dilatory tactics on behalf of petitioner to prolong the litigation. 6. The Apex Court in case of Usha BalaShaheb Swami (Supra) had laid down the general principles for amendment of pleadings that amendment to written statement cannot be equated with the facts of the plaint. The present case is distinguishable from the facts of the case of Usha BalaShaheb Swami (Supra) as in the present case the amendment in A227 No. 10794 of 2025 2 written statement has already been carried out once before the trial court and petitioner now only to linger on the revision has moved the second amendment application. 7. No case for interference is made out. Writ petition is misconceived and stands dismissed. October 8, 2025 Shekhar A227 No. 10794 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad