Dismissed

Dinesh Chandra v. Sri Mohammad Shakil and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023A227/5188/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Additional District and Sessions Judge's order denying amendment to a written statement. The court held that the sought amendments were within the petitioner's prior knowledge and confirmed no interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the order refusing amendment is dismissed.

Dinesh Chandra Vs Sri Mohammad Shakil and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138950

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5188 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Dinesh Chandra Respondent :- Sri Mohammad Shakil And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Sharma,Sohit Prakash Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

This petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 5, Agra, on an Application Paper No. 22(Ka), filed in Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2017 by the petitioner-defendant-appellant under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, seeking amendment of his written statement.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment sought were necessary to decide the real issue in controversy between the parties and that the amendment can be allowed at any stage. Though, the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct with regard to given factual situation, however in the present case, the facts are different. It is evident that a suit bearing Suit No.455 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of mandatory injunction against the petitioner-defendant, requiring him to restore peaceful vacant position of the suit property to the plaintiffs, failing which the plaintiffs be put in its physical position after eviction of the defendant No.1.

¶9

The description of the suit property is mentioned at the bottom of the plaint including the boundaries thereof. In the written statement dated 25.11.2008 filed by the petitioner-defendant, apart from denying the contents of the plaint, it was observed that the sale deed on the basis of which the plaintiffs are claiming title is a null and void document and it was stated that the the suit seeking mandatory injunction instead of possession has been filed which is barred under the provisions of Section 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act.

¶10

The suit was partly decreed by the trial court in terms of a judgment and order dated 8.2.2017, whereafter a civil appeal was filed by the petitioner-defendantappellant in the Court of District Judge, Agra being Civil Appeal No.57 of 2017. By the order impugned, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Agra has observed that the applicant has not been able to demonstrate that despite exercise of due diligence, the defendant could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial.

¶11

Paper number 22(Ka) that has been enclosed as Annexure No.6 to the petition seeks the following amendments:

¶12

"1. That after para 22 of the W.S. the following new paras be added as under-

¶13

"22A. That the suit property forms part of Khasra No.1100 area 05 Biswa situated at Mauja Mau Mustaqil Muhal Nasir Uddin Qabja No.1 Tehsil and District Agra. The Zamindar of the land of Khasra No.1098 and 1100 was Amir Hussain Khan S/o Sri Nasirulla Khan who granted permission to Sukh Lal father of Kalyan Singh the defendant no.2 to occupy, raise constructions, reside therein and also to let out through the deed dated 22.10.1953. The constructions are assessed as Property No.6/4C in the name of Kalyan Singh S/o Sukh Lal. The land in respect of which licence was granted is bounded as under -

¶14

East - Patari and Road,

¶15

West -Khet (land) of Muhal Durga Prasad

¶16

North-Land of Other persons

¶17

South-Land of the lessor

¶18

22B. That the defendant purchased the suit property from the Zamindars of the land of Khasra No.1100 viz. Sri Asharaf Khan and Asad Khan through the sale deed dated 20.6.2005 and he ceased to be tenant of the suit property. Thus the defendant has right to deny title of Lajja Ram, Subhash Chand and Kalyan Singh who were never owners of the suit property. All the judgments and decree obtained by Lajja Ram, Subhash Chand and Zahoor Khan in collusion with Kalyan Singh were obtained by practicing fraud upon the court and by concealment of true facts are null and void and not binding upon the defendant".

¶19

A bare perusal of the amendments sought evinces the fact that averments made therein were clearly within the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant-appellant before the commencement of the trial. As such, there is no such error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 5, Agra and, as such, no interference is required in this petition.

¶20

This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.7.2023 K.K.Tiwari

¶22

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

¶23

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

Dinesh Chandra v. Sri Mohammad Shakil and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chandra v. Sri Mohammad Shakil 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

Smt. Manju and Another Vs Kripal Singh

Purushottam Dubey Vs Ram Nevas and 6 Others

Zuber Khan and 2 Others Vs Rajeev Gupta

Sri Subash Vs Sri Robin and 3 Others

Ramzani and 5 Others Vs Toni Agarwal and Another

Kaushilya Devi Vs Rajendra Patel