Dismissed

Sohanveer Singh and Another v. Smt.Savita Gupta

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2021A227/5525/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, petitioners challenged the revisional court's order allowing a defendant to amend her revision memo in an execution dispute. The High Court held the order had no merit, no prejudice to petitioners, and dismissed the writ. The court directed the lower court to dispose of the revision expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; revisional court directed to decide the revision within two months.

Sohanveer Singh and Another Vs Smt.Savita… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5525 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sohanveer Singh And Another Respondent :- Smt.Savita Gupta Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Srivastava

¶3

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶5

By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC II, Ghaziabad in SCC Revision No. 04 of 2019 (Savita Gupta Vs Sohanveer and another), whereby the amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 by defendant/respondent is allowed.

¶6

SCC Suit No. 11 of 2010 (Sohanveer Singh and another Vs Smt Savita Gupta) has been filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for rent and ejectment against the defendant/respondent regarding accommodation in dispute. The said suit was contested by the defendant/respondent by filing her written statement and after hearing the parties the said suit was decreed vide judgement dated 15.12.2018 in favour of plaintiffs/petitioners. Thereafter, plaintiffs/petitioners filed execution of the same, which was registered as SCC Execution Case No. 08 of 2018. The said proceedings was challenged by the defendant/respondent by filing SCC Revision and stay was granted subject to deposit of 50 % of the decreetal amount within 30 days and further direction was passed that the defendant/respondent shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the revision vide order dated 15.2.2021. During the pendency of the said revision, defendant-respondent filed an application dated 25.3.2021 for amendment of the memo of revision, which was allowed by the revisional court vide order impugned in the present writ petition at the behest of plaintiffs/petitioners.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that by allowing the amendment application of the defendant/respondents, the learned court below has committed material irregularity. It is further contended that in a suit filed by the defendant/respondent, she had

¶8

admitted herself a tenant and therefore the present amendment is sought to delay the proceedings before the revisional court. It is further contended that the learned court below has misdirected itself by allowing the amendment application preferred by the defendant/respondent without considering the objection of the plaintiffs/petitioners.

¶9

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent submits that the revision is pending and the proposed amendment was necessary and the plaintiffs/petitioners are well within their rights to contest the proceedings by filing their reply.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶11

I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the revisional court in S.C.C. Revision No. 04 of 2019 (Savita Gupta Vs Sohanveer and another). The amendment in the memo of revision appears to be necessary for determining the controversy. The proposed amendment does not cause any prejudice to the plaintiffs/petitioners and the petitioners/plaintiffs would get opportunity to controvert the same by leading appropriate evidence.

¶12

Hence, the present writ petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed. However, revisional court is expected to decide the revision expeditiously in accordance with law, if possible within a period of two months, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, and in case the adjournment is sought, same shall be allowed after imposing heavy cost.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.10.2021 RavindraKSingh

Sohanveer Singh and Another v. Smt.Savita Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohanveer Singh and Another v. Smt.Savita Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs Pramod Kumar Jain

Sharad Kumar Khanna Vs Smt.Hansa Devi and and Others

Iftekhar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vindo Kumar Vats Vs Vijay Pratap Ahloovaliya

Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs Pyare Mohan Mathur and 3 Others

M/S Nishyam Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sardar Rajbir Singh and 3 Others