Dismissed

Brijesh Kumar and 2 Others v. Smt. Bina Kapoor and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2022A227/925/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 227 challenged the trial court's permission to amend the plaint and the revisional court's rejection of the challenge. The High Court dismissed the petition but directed the trial court to decide the suit within one year.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed; the trial court is directed to decide the suit within one year.

Brijesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs Smt. Bina Kapoor and 4… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 925 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- Smt. Bina Kapoor And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Man Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Sahai

¶4

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.2.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), District-Etah in Original Suit No. 381 of 1999 whereby the trial court has allowed Paper No. 105 A1, i.e., the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for permission to amend the plaint instituting Original Suit No. 381 of 1999. The consequential Civil Revision No. 20 of 2019 filed by the petitioners-defendants challenging the order of the trial court has also been rejected by the Additional District Judge, i.e., the revisional court vide its order dated 24.9.2021. The order dated 24.9.2021 passed by the revisional court has also been challenged in the present petition.

¶6

It has been pleaded by the counsel for the petitioners that the amendment application was highly belated and had been filed almost 10 years after the plaintiff got knowledge of the installation of the Towers.

¶7

The proposed amendment do not change the nature of the suit and the petitioners-defendants shall have the opportunity to file additional written statement pleading that the relief was time barred and the question of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, has to be decided on evidence at the time of the final disposal of the suit.

¶8

No material irregularity has been committed by the trial court and, therefore, the revisional court has rightly rejected the revision filed by the petitioners. [See Prem Bakshi and Others Vs. Dharam Dev and Others, AIR (2002) S.C. 559 ]. There is no jurisdictional error in the orders of the courts below.

¶9

The petition is dismissed.

¶10

However, considering the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the Civil Judge (Senior Division), District-Etah is directed to decide Original Suit No. 381 of 1999 expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.

¶11

Order Date :- 4.3.2022 Anurag/-

¶12

Digitally signed by ANURAG KUMAR VERMA Date: 2022.03.04 14:56:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijesh Kumar and 2 Others v. Smt. Bina Kapoor and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar and 2 Others v. Smt. Bina Kapoor and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brajendra Kumar Vs Kamta Prasad and Another

Smt. Sandhya Verma @ Priti Vs Ravi Prakash Patel Alias Vishal

Guddi Devi and Another Vs Sri. Vijay Bahadur Singh

Ruchi Mittal Vs Nagar Nigam Prayagraj

Triveni Prasad Vs Premnarayan and 8 Others

Shahabuddin Vs Abid Ali and Another