Dismissed

Pudun v. Additional District Judge-I, Balrampur and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024A227/35/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the allowance of an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Court held that no serious prejudice accrued since the amendment clarified pleadings necessitated by additional evidence allowed by consent, and ordered the lower court to expeditiously decide the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage; the lower court is directed to decide the pending appeal expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Pudun vs Additional District Judge-I… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1946

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 35 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Pudun

¶5

Respondent :- Additional District Judge-I, Balrampur And Another

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhulika Yadav

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard Ms. Madhurima Bhargava, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and filed her Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order impugned dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge-1, Balrampur in Civil Appeal No.25/2016, whereby an application for amendment filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been allowed.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private-respondent had instituted a suit for injunction on the basis of the fact that the property in dispute was the sehan of the plaintiff and since the defendant was interfering in the possession, consequently, he be restrained.

¶11

The matter was contested and the trial Court by means of the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016 dismissed the suit with finding that the plaintiff could not establish the title to the property as he has not disclosed where the said plot was situate and also since there was no documentary or parole evidence to the aforesaid effect, hence, the plaintiff has failed to establish his rights over the sehan.

¶12

Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016, the plaintiff-respondent instituted a Regular Civil Appeal No.25/2016. During pendency of the said appeal, an application bearing No.34-Ka under Order VI Rule 17 was moved by the plaintiff-respondent which has been allowed by the lower appellate Court by means of the impugned judgment.

¶13

Assailing the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no reasonable explanation given by the plaintiff-respondent regarding as to why the said application could not have been moved earlier.

¶14

It is urged that in the application itself it was mentioned that the plaintiff-respondent came to know about the plot number as well as the area when the Halka Lekhpal had made the measurement in the year 2019 despite the same, the application has been moved in the year 2023 and as such there is a clear violation of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, accordingly, the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law.

¶15

The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record including the impugned order.

¶16

Apparently what is reflected from the record is the fact that the private-respondent had also moved another application bearing Ga-27 for bringing on record certain additional evidence. The said application was allowed by the lower Appellate Court. While doing so, it has been noted in the impugned order that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 was allowed on a cost and the said order was with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Once, the documents have already been allowed to be taken on record, it is thereafter in order to substantiate the same, the plaintiff has moved an application for amendment.

¶17

Considering the fact that by means of the impugned amendment the plaintiff clarified in its plaint that the property in dispute was part of Plot No.347-Ka and that the area instead of 1000 is 2525 sq.ft.

¶18

Having considered the pleadings on record, it will indicate that it is not in any manner going to displace the case of the defendant-petitioner for the reason that the plaintiff-respondent is required to establish his own case. The petitioner was also granted time to file the additional document which has already been done in pursuance of the order by which the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was allowed. It is in light thereof that taking a holistic view the lower Appellate Court has allowed the application for amendment.

¶19

The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff-respondent did not explain its due diligence as to why the said application was moved with delay.

¶20

Suffice it to say that this aspect has been noticed by the lower Appellate Court to state that the amendment is only necessitated for the purpose of elucidating and effectively adjudicating the controversy. The amendment was not found to be motivated by mala-fide. Apart from the fact that it was in furtherance of the order passed by the lower Appellate Court allowing the additional evidence on record.

¶21

In light of the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no serious prejudice which shall be caused to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any merit in this petition which is dismissed at the admission stage. However, the lower Appellate Court shall endeavour to decide the pending appeal of the year 2016 expeditiously after affording full opportunity of hearing but without granting any unnecessary adjournments, in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.1.2024 Rakesh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pudun v. Additional District Judge-I, Balrampur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pudun v. Additional District Judge-I, Balrampur and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Subhag and 3 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and 2 Others

Archana Rajan and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge, North (J.D.) Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Sushila Devi and Another Vs Civil Judge (S.D.) District Gonda and Another

Premchand vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Smt. Shivkanti vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and Another

Rajneesh Kumar Tripathi vs Civil Judge Lucknow (Senior Division), Lko. and 2 Others