Single judge held that the correctness of pleas regarding subsequent event amendment cannot be examined during amendment proceedings. Dismissed writ petition challenging trial and revision court orders without interference under Article 227.
Petition dismissed for lack of merit without interference with impugned orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4689 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pappu Gupta And Another Respondent :- Shafi Ullaha Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganga Prasad Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Yogendra Pati Tripathi
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
By impugned order dated 09.07.2018 the Trial Court has allowed the application of the plaintiff-respondent seeking amendment in the written statement so as to bring on record subsequent event relating to raising of constructions by the defendants-petitioners over the suit property. The order passed by the Revisional Court dated 27.04.2019 dismissing the revision is also under challenge.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the constructions were in existence before institution of the suit. Since no relief was claimed in respect thereof, the amendment which is now being sought is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.
The plaintiff-respondent does not admit that the constructions were in existence before institution of the suit. According to him these constructions have been raised during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court has allowed the amendment application by noting that according to the plaintiff-respondent the constructions have been raised during pendency of the suit and, therefore, subsequent event deserves to be brought on record.
The issue as to whether the constructions were in existence prior to institution of the suit or they had been raised after its institution has to be decided by the Trial Court on basis of evidence led by the parties during trial. Based on the said decision issue relating to Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. if raised, would also be decided. However, it is settled law that at the time of considering an application for amendment the correctness of the pleas sought to be raised cannot be examined.
In such view of the matter, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 VR
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing amendment of the written statement to include subsequent events without examination of evidence regarding timing of constructions.
Whether this Court should interfere under Article 227 with the amplitude exercised in allowing such amendment application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pappu Gupta
Shafi Ullaha
Manoj Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
