*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5200/2007 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1227/2008 Mrs.Nargis Majid Oomerbhoy. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Vinod Kumar Baldevsingh Saigal and another. ..Respondents ............... Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Counsel a/w Ms.Dipti Nazareth, Advocate i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr.Zubin Behramkamdin, Advocate a/w Mr.Amit Bhave and Mr.Vinod Sakpal, Advocates i/b M/s Milan Bhise & Company, for the Respondent No.1. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 20th November, 2009. PC:- 1 The present Petitioner/ Plaintiff is the landlady who has filed this petition challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order-7 Rule-11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that there does not exist any cause of action against the Defendants. The Petitioner had instituted the suit for ejectment and possession against the original tenant by name Raj Kumar Baldevsingh Saigal by making an averment that he was tenant in occupation of the premises in question. During the pendency of suit, the original tenant Raj Kumar Baldevsingh Saigal expired on 27.05.1998. The present Respondents intimated the Petitioner about the fact of death of the original tenant vide communication dated 06.04.1999. In the *2* said notice, it is claimed that Vinod Kumar Baldevsingh Saigal, who is brother of the deceased Raj Kumar, and his family members are in occupation of the premises and hence, the tenancy rights devolved upon them. The Petitioner, thereafter, took out the Notice of Motion No.2478/1999 with a view to bring on record Vinod Kumar Saigal viz. brother of the original Defendant Raj Kumar as his legal heir. In the said application, a categorical stand is taken by the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 (Vinod Kumar Saigal) does not have any tenancy rights in relation to the suit premises. Thereafter, the plaint came to be amended which goes to insert paragraph No.6(a), which reads thus:- “6(a) The Plaintiff states that the original defendant died on 27th May, 1998 leaving the present defendant as his brother and heir and legal representatives according to the law by which he was governed. The plaintiff states that she does not admit any right of the defendant in the suit premises and put the defendant to proof of his right in the suit premises. In any event the plaintiff states that she is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit against the defendants.” 2 In view of the stand taken by the Petitioner/ Plaintiff as revealed from the amended paragraph No.6(a) of the plaint, the Respondent No.1 moved an application for rejection of the plaint and the Trial Court rejected the said application. The Respondent No.1, thus, filed the revision before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Bench allowed the revision *3* after setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court, consequent upon which, the plaint stands rejected. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3 This Court by an order dated 20.02.2009 had permitted deletion of the bracketed portion of statement appearing in paragraph No.6(a) of the plaint as the learned counsel for the Petitioner categorically stated that the Petitioner is admitting the Respondent No.1/ Defendant to be the tenant of the Petitioner/ Plaintiff. In substance, what was prayed for was the permission to amend the plaint whereby the status of the Respondent No.1/ Defendant as tenant is accepted. It is crystal clear that permitting deletion of bracketed portion of paragraph No.6(a) of the plaint in no way prejudice the Respondent as it goes to admit the Defendant as tenant. On the contrary, the Petitioner is conceding to what was being insisted upon by the Respondent No.1 right since beginning that the Respondent No.1 is tenant. Thus, granting permission for deletion of the bracketed portion of paragraph No.6(a) of the plaint would go to the advantage of the Respondent No.1 and does not in any manner put him to any disadvantageous position. The order dated 20.02.2009 passed by this Court came to be set aside on a review application made by the Respondent No.1 for the reason that the Advocate for the Respondent No.1 was absent when the said order came to be passed. In the interest of justice, allowing the review application the order dated 20.02.2009 came to be set aside and thus, the matter has been listed today before this Court. 4 The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of Heeralal vs. Kalyan Mal and others reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 618 and in case *4* of Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly and others reported in (2008)7 SCC 85, to substantiate his submission that the amendment of plaint seeking withdrawal of admission cannot be permitted. 5 In the present case in substance the Petitioner is conceding to the position asserted by the Respondent No.1 that he is tenant after the demise of the original tenant in relation to the suit premises. The principle underlined in the judgments, referred to herein above, is that the party cannot resile from the admission which accrues right in other side consequent upon the said admission. The situation obtained in the present Writ Petition is altogether different and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 has no application to the fats of the present case. As I am of the clear view that permitting the deletion of the bracketed portion of paragraph No.6(a) would be in furtherance of the cause of justice, the Petitioner need to be permitted to delete the bracketed portion and thereby, admit the Respondent No.1 to be the tenant in the suit premises. 6 It would not be out of place to mention here that the suit in question is of the year 1998 and the Petitioner/ landlady has been litigating for last more than 10 years. As the Petitioner is now accepting the Respondent No.1 to be the tenant, the suit can proceed before the same Court without any doubt about the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the matter. No useful purpose would be served by refusing the permission to the Petitioner to admit the Respondent No.1 to be the tenant. Otherwise, the Petitioner would be required to file a fresh suit based on the same pleadings and admitting the Respondent No.1 to be the tenant. *5* Refusing the permission would only result in delay in adjudication of the dispute interse the parties and unnecessary protracted litigation which can be safely avoided by permitting the deletion of the bracketed portion of paragraph No.6(a). In the result, the same is permitted. In view of grant of permission to delete the bracketed portion of paragraph No.6(a) of the plaint by permitting the amendment, nothing survives in the petition. 7 In the result, the impugned order dated 13.06.2007 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court is quashed and set aside. As a consequence of this order, no further order is required in writ petition as the basis on which the impugned order came to be passed would stand effaced from the record and in which case the suit will have to proceed on its own merit as per the amendment permitted in terms of this order. The Writ Petition is also disposed of on that basis making it clear that the suit stands restored to the file of the Trial Court to be proceeded in accordance with the law. Amendment be carried out within two weeks from today. 8 Having regard to the fact that the suit is pending for more than 10 years, I hope and trust that the Trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 9 Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. In view of the disposal of Writ Petition, Civil Application does not survive and the same is also disposed of. (A.P. Deshpande, J)