Dismissed
Renu Chaudhari v. State of U.P. and Others
Allahabad HCWRIC/41105/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41105 of 2008…
What the court decided
AI extract
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41105 of 2008…
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. - 59
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41105 of 2008
Petitioner :- Renu Chaudhari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- H.M. Srivastava,V.S. Rajpoot Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Sharma
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
List revised. Case called out.
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press the petition.
Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are present.
The case is listed peremptorily. An interim order dated 14.8.2008 is operating.
This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of a civil court which is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423.
That apart, O.S. No.86 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiffrespondent no.4 in which the petitioner was defendant. The plaintiff filed an amendment application being Paper No. 145A-1 to add certain words in paragraph 5 of the plaint. The said amendment application was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 15.5.2007 against which, the petitioner-defendant filed a Civil Revision No.121 of 2007 (Smt. Renu Chaudhari Vs. State of U.P.) which was dismissed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Bulandshahar vide impugned order dated 16.4.2008.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that the amendment application was allowed within the four corners of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. Thus, even the impugned order does not suffer from any manifest error of law.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 12.3.2019 Vivek Kr.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and othersReferred¶9
Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 · Who else cites this
Renu Chaudhari
State Of U.P.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court