Remanded

Ghasiram and 3 Others v. Amar Singh and 18 Others

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2019A227/6674/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 writ petition, the High Court directed the trial court to frame an additional issue to determine if the suit is barred under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, noting the original order left this out despite a court observation that O. 14 R. 5 CPC allows framing missing issues.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to file an application for framing additional issue regarding bar under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

Ghasiram and 3 Others Vs Amar Singh and 18 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6674 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ghasiram And 3 Others Respondent :- Amar Singh And 18 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tripathi,Ashok Kumar Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant petition, by the defendants of Original Suit No. 417 of 2008, has been filed challenging the order dated 5.4.2019 passed by the trial court rejecting the application 75-C as well as order dated 30th May, 2019 passed by the revisional court, dismissing the revision.

¶6

In the application 75-C, the prayer made by the defendants-petitioners was for recalling the order dated 27.10.2017, whereby issues were framed in the suit and certain issues were also decided as preliminary issues. According to the petitioners, they were not heard while passing the said order and as a result whereof, an important issue as to whether suit is barred under Section 5 and 49 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, has been left out from being framed. The trial court by impugned order dated 5.4.2019 has rejected the application observing that the order dated 20.7.2017 was passed on merits after hearing the parties. It has also observed in the impugned order that in case any issue is left out from being framed, the court still has power under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. to frame additional issue.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that while filing written statement, a specific plea was taken

¶8

that the suit is barred under Section 5 and 49 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. was also filed for rejecting the plaint on the said ground. The court, while disposing of the said application by order dated 18.4.2015, observed that the said question would be decided after framing an issue on the point. It is urged that in such circumstances, issue as to whether suit is barred under Section 5 and 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act ought to have been framed. Counsel for the petitioners admits that so far the petitioners have not filed any application before the trial court praying for framing of additional issue in above terms.

¶9

Having regard to the facts of the case and the order passed by the trial court dated 18.4.2015, I am of the opinion that the court ought to have framed issue as to whether the suit is barred under Section 5 and 49 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act. Since the said issue has been left out from being framed and the trial court itself had observed that in case any issue has been left out, it would exercise its power under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. for framing additional issue, consequently, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an application for such purpose. In the event, any such application is filed, the trial court having regard to its previous order dated 18.4.2015 shall proceed to frame additional issue.

¶10

(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶11

Order Date :- 14.10.2019/ Chandan

Ghasiram and 3 Others v. Amar Singh and 18 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghasiram and 3 Others v. Amar Singh and 18 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

Smt. Santosh and 2 Others Vs Smt. Khursheed and Another

Laxmikant Vs Raj Kumar Patel and Another

Rajmani Vs Civil Judge and 4 Others

Smt. Virma Devi and 10 Others Vs Shri Rameshwar

Rajendra Rai Vs Vijay Bahadur Rai and Another

Rahat Niyaz Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited and 2 Others