Petitioner challenged the District Judge's order allowing amendment of a plaint to seek demolition of constructions raised during suit due to alleged violation of injunction. High Court held amendment was based on supervening event and furthered the case without changing suit nature.
The writ petition is dismissed; no order as to costs.
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. - 6
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3942 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vajid Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 17 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Mohan Singh,Narendra Kumar Bhadana
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The plaintiff-respondents filed Original Suit No. 727 of 1992 before the ex court of Munsif (West), Allahabad for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants their agents and associates be restrained from encroaching into the petitioner's bhumidhari land bearing plot No. 33, Khata No. 46, situate at village Ram Nagar, Pargana Sikandra, Tehsil Phulpur, District Allahabad as per boundaries disclosed on the foot of the plaint; not to dispossess the plaintiff or illegally raise constructions over the suit property or otherwise interfere in the plaintiff's peaceful title, possession and user in any manner whatsoever. Now, by means of an amendment application dated 01.02.2018, the plaintiff has come up with a case that in violation of the temporary injunction order dated 24.09.1994, the defendants pending suit have encroached into the suit property by employment of muscle power and have raised some kind of a construction over the same which is required to be demolished.
To the above end, the plaintiff has sought to amend the plaint and include a relief for a decree of demolition of constructions raised pending suit denoted by various letters and carrying dimensions of the constructions raised after the alleged encroachment. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 30.01.2019.
Upon a revision being preferred by the plaintiff to the District Judge of Allahabad being Civil Revision No. 13 of 2019, the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Allahabad has allowed the same granting the amendment.
Aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2022, passed by the Revisional Court, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed.
Upon hearing Mr. Shyam Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 and perusing the records, this Court finds that the amendment sought is based on a supervening events which is said to be an encroachment into the plaintiff's land by the defendant in violation of a temporary injunction order.
A prayer for amendment is not to be judged by the truth or falsehood of the allegation sought to be introduced through the amended pleas but by the fact, whether it changes the nature of the suit or does something which goes against the fundamental principles of granting an amendment. The amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. have also to be borne in mind.
Here, what the Court finds is that the amendment sought is based on a supervening event and that is a case of encroachment pendente lite. The amendment, therefore, does not in any way militate against any settled principle permitting amendments to be made by parties to their pleadings. Rather, the amendment made furthers the parties case for a wholesome trial of all issues. This Court should not be understood to mean that the allegations of the plaintiff introduced through the amended pleas are right or the defendant's case against it is without substance. Those are matters that would be judged at the hearing of the suit, at whatever stage the determination is
made. But, so far as the amendment is concerned, the same has been granted on sound principles and no fault can be found with it.
In the circumstances, this petition fails and is dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.5.2022 Brijesh Maurya
Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2022.05.30 15:53:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a plea amendment based on supervening encroachment pendente lite changes the nature of the suit or violates fundamental principles of amendment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vajid Ali
State Of U.P.
Munir, J.
Brijesh Maurya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
