By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and heard accordingly.

2.The petition is filed by the plaintiffs who instituted Regular Civil Suit No.880 of 1991 for eviction of the tenant under section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act, for short). An application at Exhibit- 161 came to be filed by the Plaintiffs on or about 14th July, 2003 seeking amendments in the plaint and by order dated 25th July, 2003 the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ahmednagar allowed the application but subject to levying costs of Rs.1,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendants filed Civil Revision Application No.4 of 2003 in the District Court at Ahmednagar under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act or section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (Maharashtra Rent Act, for short). By filing reply the Plaintiffs had opposed the maintainability of the revision. However, by the impugned judgment and order dated 17th April, 2003 the learned Joint District Judge at Ahmednagar allowed the revision and the order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit-161 before the trial Court was rejected.

3.Shri Bedre, the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that under the scheme of Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act or Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Act a revision against an interlocutory order, allowing amendments in the plaint, was not maintainable and in support of these contentions he reiterated his reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir Vs. Rambhujarat Kshampati (AIR 1983 Bom 25 [LQ/BomHC/1982/352] ) and Madanlal Mulchand Soni Vs. Manikchand Dhanraj Gugle (AIR 1983 Bom. 35 [LQ/BomHC/1982/133] ).

4.Shri Palod, the learned Advocate for the Respondent/defendant on the other hand has supported the order passed by the Revision Court rejecting the amendment application at Exhibit- 161 and he submitted that the order of amendment was not merely a technical or procedural order but it has, in fact, affected the substantial rights of the defendant and, therefore, the District Court rightly entertained the revision application. In support of these submissions he has placed reliance on the decisions of the this Court in the case of Yusuf Ibrahim Pawaskar Vs. Karamchand Narayan Tandan since deceased by his heirs Vishan Prakash Karamchand Tandan and others (1993 Mh.L.J. 71) and Janu Laxman Kumbhar Vs. Pandurang Laxman Kumbhar (2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 159).

5.The amendment application at Exhibit-161 was seeking two amendments viz. (a) the name of one of the Plaintiffs, as set out in the plaint was "Asarabi" and it was sought to be amended as "Sayarabi" and (b) in the Column No.1 of the plaint the description of the suit property was given as 10 x 10 and it was sought to be changed to 17 x 10. In addition the boundaries of the suit property were also sought to be changed. Now, so far as the first amendment is concerned Shri Palod fairly conceded that there should be no serious dispute on allowing such an amendment even after a lapse of ten years but the amendment sought to be made in respect of the suit property, including its boundaries, would totally change the description as well as location of the suit property. The Plaintiff had started his evidence on 26th September, 2002 and it was closed on 29th January, 2003. He had stated in his depositions that the property in possession of the defendant was the premises admeasuring 10 x 10. The examination-in-chief of the defendant had also started on 11th July, 2003 and the amendment application was made on the next date i.e. on 14th July, 2003 by contending that the suit premises admeasured 17 x 10. It would be, thus, clear that the second amendment was not merely a procedural or technical amendment. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhdev Prasad (supra) has held, inter alia, that barely procedural orders which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties are not revisable under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. This ratio was followed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Madanlal Mulchand Soni (supra). In that case, the trial Court, by an order dated 21st November, 1980, had issued process to the Income Tax Officer at the behest of the defendant though issuance of such a process was objected to on behalf of the plaintiff. This order was challenged in a revision application filed under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act and the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge had dismissed the revision. This Court rightly held that the revision was not maintainable. Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents Act, reads as under:

"29. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, an appeal shall lie ... ... ... ...

(3) Where no appeal lies under this section from a decree or order in any suit or proceeding in Greater Bombay and bench of two Judges specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) and elsewhere the District Court, may for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decree or order made was according to law, call for the case in which such decree or order was made and the bench or Court aforesaid or the District Judge or any Judge to whom the case may be referred by the District Judge, shall pass such order with respect thereto as it or he thinks fit."

6.There could be no dispute that an order which affects substantial rights of the parties and which could not be termed to be merely a procedural order is revisable in an application filed under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act. In the instant case, the second amendment did affect the substantive rights of the defendant and, therefore, it cannot be held that the Revision filed by the defendant was not tenable.

7.By the amendment brought into force from 1st July, 2002 in the Civil Procedure Code, the right to amend the plaint is circumscribed by the proviso added to Rule 17 of Order VI. It states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The trial Court itself has noted that the defendant had filed his written statement in 1993 and the amendment application which was moved after the plaintiffs evidence was recorded there was no reason set out as to why the plaintiffs could not seek amendment regarding the suit property to a period of ten years and unless such a reason was set out there was no scope for the trial Court to come to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party i.e. the Plaintiffs could not move an application for amendment. No doubt, the plaintiff himself is supposed to be keen in getting the suit decided at the earliest possible and the amendment sought may not cause prejudice to the defendants cannot be accepted. The revision Court, therefore, rightly considered the nature of the amendment and held that it was not permissible to be allowed at such belated stage. No interference is called for in the said order so far as it relates to the amendment in respect of the suit property (its description and boundaries).

8.In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the order of the trial Court in allowing the amendment to the extent of one of the plaintiffs name from "Asarabi" to "Sayarabi" is hereby confirmed whereas the revision Courts order in disallowing the amendment in respect of the measurements and the boundaries of the suit property is also confirmed. Trial of the suit is expedited and it be decided preferably within a period of six months.

Rule is made absolute in terms of the above order with no order as to costs.

9.In view of final disposal of the petition itself Civil Application No.5040 of 2004 does not survive any further and the same also sands disposed of accordingly.