Allowed

Murlidhar Gupta v. Shashikala @ Indu and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2021A227/5801/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Additional District Judge's rejection of the petitioner's amendment application in a pending appeal. The Court allowed the application, imposed costs, and directed the lower court to decide the appeal expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.09.2021 is set aside. The amendment application is allowed with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited.

Murlidhar Gupta Vs Shashikala @ Indu and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5801 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Murlidhar Gupta Respondent :- Shashikala @ Indu And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla,Brahmanand Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the order dated 27.09.2021 by which amendment application filed by petitioner in Rent Control Appeal No.04 of 2017 (Murlidhar Gupta vs. Ajay Kumar) has been rejected by Additional District Judge 1st, Jaunpur.

¶7

In short, the facts are that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondents-landlords. The father of respondents had filed P.A. Case No.15 of 2013, under Section 21 (1) (a) of Rent Control Act No.13, 1972 for eviction of shop in question in which the petitioner had filed objection/written statement. By order dated 24.05.2017, the Prescribed Authority Jaunpur had allowed the said suit filed by father of opposite party. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was numbered as Rent Control Appeal No.04 of 2017 in which an amendment application had also been filed by petitioner. The said amendment application was rejected/dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2021, hence, this writ petition.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of filing appeal, some relevant facts, which was necessary for proper adjudication of the case, had been left due to human mistake and the court below without considering the facts illegally dismissed the amendment application. He has further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending.

¶9

Perused the record and the order sheet of the court below.

¶10

Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Hence, the trial court has committed manifest error while rejecting the amendment application filed by petitioner.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made, the instant writ petition is allowed and the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by Additional District Judge 1st, Jaunpur in amendment application filed by petitioner in Rent Control Appeal No.04 of 2017 (Murlidhar Gupta vs. Ajay Kumar) is hereby set aside. The Amendment Application No.16-ka & 19-ga filed by the petitioner before the court below is also allowed with cost of Rs.20,000/- which shall be deposited before the court below within one month from today. The necessary amendment shall be carried out by the petitioner before the court below within 15 days from today.

¶12

Court below is also directed to decide the aforementioned Rent Control Appeal No.04 of 2017 (Murlidhar Gupta vs. Ajay Kumar) in accordance with law, expeditiously, within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted by the court below and if the adjournment is sought by either of the parties, the court below shall impose heavy cost upon the parties.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.11.2021

¶14

Ajeet

Murlidhar Gupta v. Shashikala @ Indu and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murlidhar Gupta v. Shashikala @ Indu and 3 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

Narendra Kumar Rayjada Vs Zila Samajwadi Party and Another

Sanjay Kumar Mall and 2 Others Vs Shri Ram Yadav and Another

Satish Chandra Gupta Vs Smt. Asha Gupta and 3 Others

Smt. Sangeeta Alias Chanchal Vs Mohammad Faisal

Ritu Jaiswal Vs Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal

Smt Deepali Goel and Another Vs Sri Chetan Nagpal and Another