Dismissed

Bindu Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018WRIC/30717/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the lower court's order allowing an amendment in an election petition to include omitted village and district details. The Single Judge held that since the trial had not commenced and no prejudice was caused, the amendment fell within Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed; the impugned order allowing the amendment is upheld within the parameters of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

Bindu Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30717 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Bindu Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Shashi Bhushan Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandan Sharma learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.3 and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 6.6.2017 passed by respondent No.2 in Election Petition NO.5 of 2016 (Radheyshyam vs. Bindu and others) under Section 12(C) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, Mauza Parsara, Pargana Kolasala, Tehsil Pindra, District Varanasi.

¶7

By the impugned order the amendment application filed by respondent No.3, the election petitioner, under Order VI Rule 70 of the C.P.C. seeking amendment in the prayer clause that by mistake the name of the Village, Vikas Khand, Tehsil and District has been left from being mentioned and therefore, the amendment be allowed, was allowed by respondent no.2 on the ground that till date issues have not been framed and the petition has not been fixed for evidence.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this amendment has been sought after the written statement was filed by the petitioner who is the returned candidate taking this objection that the name of the village etc. has not been mentioned in the prayer clause, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. He submits that the nature of the suit should not be changed by amendment and no such amendment in the relief clause wherein no specific description of the village etc. has been given by the petitioner and it is vital for maintainability of the election petition, can be allowed.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Sri Chandan Sharma, submitted that issues have not been framed and evidence has not yet begin, therefore, there is no illegal impediment in allowing the amendment application and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by incorporating the description of village etc. in prayer clause.

¶10

I have considered the rival submission and perused the record.

¶11

On perusal of record I find that the amendment in the prayer clause has been sought wherein the words "Gram Partara, Vikas Khand Pindra, Tehsil Pindra, District Varanasi in first line and in second line the word "runner" and in third line the word between Gram Pradhan Mauza Parsara, Vikas Khand Pindra, Tehsil Pindra, District Varanasi" are sought to be added.

¶12

On merit nothing is being added and admittedly, the trial has not yet been

¶13

started. The impugned order clearly reflects that the case is still pending on the objection and counter objection and for disposal of the other miscellaneous applications. Thus, the order impugned herein is within the parameter of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

¶14

In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.

¶15

The petition stands dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.11.2018 AKJ

Bindu Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyapal Singh Vs Firm Swastik Plaza and 4 Others

Smt. Jhumi Kulshreshtha and Another Vs Shiv Shankar Agrawal

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Uday Bhan Yadav and Another Vs District Magistrate and 12 Others

Jai Ma Vindvasini Khadi Gram Udyog Sansta Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Krishnapal Vs State of U P and 5 Others