This High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the rejection of an amendment application to alter land boundaries in a civil suit. The Court upheld the trial court order, distinguishing cited precedent, and dismissed the petition.
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.
Reserved
Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4089 of 2022
Petitioner :- Alagu (Since Deceased) and 7 others Respondent :- Munni Lal and 6 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Muktesh Kumar Singh, Harihar Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard Mr. Muktesh Kumar Singh, for the petitioners and Mr. Ghanshyam Das Mishra for the respondents.
2. By means of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.4.2022 passed by Additional District Judge, VIth / Special Judge (M.P.M.L.A.), Jaunpur in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2009 (Alagu Vs. Munni Lal) by which application for amendment filed in the suit was rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs – respondents filed Original Suit No. 524 of 1988 for permanent injunction for not interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondents over the land in question. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioners- defendants filed written statement along with site plan. The plaintiffs -respondents also filed objection thereto. Thereafter thrice the reports were submitted before the trial court and thereafter by order dated 27.4.2009, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had decreed the suit and passed the order for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-respondents. Against the said order, the petitioners – defendants filed i.e. Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2009. During pendency of the said appeal an application under Order VI, Rule XVII CPC was moved for amendment the boundaries of the site plan, which was annexed with the written statement and marked as Paper No. 7 A. On 20.11.2020, the
2
plaintiffs – respondents filed an objection in the amendment application. The said amendment application was rejected vide order dated 12.10.2021. On 20.12.2021, the petitioners – defendants filed a review application under Section 114 CPC before the appellate court with the prayer to review its order dated 12.10.2021. The appellate court vide order dated 11.4.2022 rejected the said review application. The appellate court while rejecting the amendment application has recorded the finding that the nature of the amendment application in the site plan will change the nature of the land in question, which is sub-judice before the court and therefore it is not permissible to amend the site plan. Hence the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that amendment application was moved by adding para 17A with a view to amend the boundaries of map annexed along with written submission and it will neither change nature of the land in question nor any other material, therefore, the appellate court was not justified in rejecting the amendment application. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Varun Pahwa Vs. Mrs. Renu Chaudhary, 2019(15) SCC 628.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that in the garb of said amendment, the plaintiffs-appellantspetitioners has tried to change or alter the nature of the land in question, which is sub-judice before the appellate court. He further submitted that by means of amendment not only the boundaries but also the nature of the land in question will be changed and therefore, the court below was justified in rejecting the said amendment application. He further submitted that the orders passed by the court below are absolutely correct and no interference is called for.
6. The Court has perused the records.
7. The following amendments were sought to be made after para 17 A:-
दफा 1- यह कि� नक्शा नजरी मुन्दज� बयान तहरीरी में रेखा बी सी �े दति.ण लब्ज आवादी मोहरी जिजसे ्ቚतितवादी ने हाजिसल �र लिलया है, व उस�े बाद आबादी शिशवजीत दज� कि�या जावे।
3
दफा 2. यह कि� म�ान वादी मुन्दज� बयान तहरीरी �े दति.ण म�ान मोहरी देवी जिजसे हम ्ቚतितवादी ने हाजिसल �र लिलया है। दज� कि�या जावे।
दफा 3. यह कि� रेखा पी क्यू �े पूरब च� श्यामा जिजस पर उन�े पु्ቔगण �न्हैयालाल व अच्छे लाल �ाकिबज हैं, दज� कि�या जावे।
दफा 4. यह कि� रेखा ओ पी �े उ्ቈर लब्ज म�ान श्यामा जिजस पर वत�मान में उन�े पु्ቔ गण �न्हैयालाल, अच्छे लाल �ाकिबज है, दज� कि�या जावे। "
8. On perusal of the written submission filed in the original suit copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to this petition, the following prayer was made in para 17 “दफा 17 य꼳롖क꼓ꘈदा वा वा द꼓ꘈग胚矺बा सक敓文मौजूदा मैंटेनब敓文न꼳롖꼓ꘈ२ᮟ꼳롖ै।" On perusal of the written statement after para 17, no elaboration of facts was required to be mentioned but a new statement of fact is tried to be incorporated which is not permissible. On perusal of the said para, it transpires that neither any detail nor any reference of the boundaries as required to be mentioned, were whispered. All new boundaries were tried to be incorporated by means of the proposed amendment. By means of the aforesaid amendment, by mentioning names of various persons, the applicant tried to change the nature of the land in question, which is not permitted. Therefore, the court below has rightly rejected the amendment application.
9. Further, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners in Varun Pahwa ( supra ) is not applicable in the facts of the present case as in the said case only inadvertent mistake in the plaint was required to be amended by permitting the private limited company who have instituted the suit instead of individual i.e. name of the Director. The facts of the present case are entirely different and therefore the said judgement is of no help to the petitioners.
10. In view of above, no interference is called for by this Court. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 25.8.2022 Rahul Dwivedi/-
Digitally signed by RAHUL DWIVEDI Date: 2022.08.26 14:36:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an amendment application for altering boundaries and nature of land in a sub-judice matter should be permitted under Order VI Rule XVII CPC.
Whether the principle laid down in Varun Pahwa regarding amendment of plaint is applicable to the present case involving land boundaries.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Varun Pahwa Vs. Mrs. Renu ChaudharyDistinguished¶11
Varun Pahwa Vs. Mrs. Renu Chaudhary, 2019(15) SCC 628 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Alagu (Since Deceased) and 7 others
Munni Lal and 6 others
Piyush Agrawal
Rahul Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
