Dismissed

Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. Gyanti Singh and 6 Others

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023A227/1865/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Article 227 writ petition, the Allahabad High Court declined to interfere with the Additional District Judges' order dismissing an amendment application. The court held that the petitioners case regarding property dimensions was introduced at the appellate stage after trial completion, violating the amended proviso to CPC Order VI Rule 17.

What the court decided

AI extract

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Gyanti Singh and 6 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171254

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1865 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- Gyanti Singh And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Vats,Sheetendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶7

This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶8

"A. Issue an order or direction to set aside the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Additional District Judge 3rd Jaunpur in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2017 (Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Gyanati Singh).

¶9

B. Issue an order or direction to allow the Amendment Application 61-C filed by the petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2017 (Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Gyanati Singh)."

¶10

It appears that a suit No. 604 of 2003 was filed on 28.11.2003 by the defendant-respondent No.1 seeking a relief of possession regarding the suit property or, in view thereof, to refund an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1000/- per month with 10% interest per annum against the defendant No.6.

¶11

A written statement was filed on 20.10.2004. The aforesaid suit No. 604 of 2003 was decreed pursuant to judgment and order dated 17.10.2017. An appeal was filed by the defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the aforesaid decree, which came to be numbered as civil appeal No. 81 of 2017. In the aforesaid appeal, an application paper No. 61(Ka) was filed by the defendant-appellant seeking to amend the written statement. By the order impugned dated 1.2.2023. The appellate court has dismissed the aforesaid application for amendment.

¶12

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment sought was not as if the nature of the defence would be changed inasmuch as the gallery in dispute had an area of 25 x 10 feet but in the judgment of the trial court, it was wrongly mentioned as 25 x 100 feet. It was stated that the

¶13

plaintiff's own case is that the sale deed dated 7.11.2002 was in respect of the property having an area of 25 x 10 feet which is mentioned in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint. It is stated that, therefore, in the additional pleas raised in the written statement, this fact was sought to be elaborated that the area under the sale deed was 25 x 10 feet.

¶14

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appellate court has noticed that in the written statement, the contents of paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint have been denied and, therefore, the defendant is seeking to change the nature of the plea and new facts are sought to be introduced in the written statement. It was further observed that amendment in the written statement has been sought at the appellate stage but as per the amended proviso, since the amendment has been sought after the commencement of the trial, the amendment application cannot be allowed.

¶15

It was stated that the evidence of the parties has concluded and the trial court has given its decision, against which the appeal has been filed and, accordingly, the application was rejected. By the amendment under the Act 22 of 2002, a proviso was inserted in Order VI Rule 17, with effect from 1.7.2002 which limits the extent of the permissibility for allowing an amendment in the pleadings. It is not the case of the defendant in application number 61(Ka) that despite exercise of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial.

¶16

As a matter of fact, the petitioner admits the fact that the amendment application filed was within his knowledge, but due to human error, it was omitted to be mentioned. In any view of the matter, the own case of the plaintiff, as reflected in application No.61(Ka) is that the area that is mentioned in the sale deed dated 7.11.2002 has dimensions of 25 x 10 feet, which is 250 square feet.

¶17

Under the circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 1.2.2023, and this petition is, therefore, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 K.K.Tiwari

¶19

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. Gyanti Singh and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. Gyanti Singh and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Prakash Vs Shri Om and Others

Smt. Asha Devi Agarwal and Others Vs Sardar Santokh Singh

Qayum and Others Vs Udai Nath and Another

Kinsraj (Deceased) and 5 Others Vs Jagdev (Deceased) and 4 Others

Heeralal Gupta Vs Girja and 3 Others

Subhash Pal and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and 25 Others