Dismissed

Narendra Kumar and 3 Others v. Smt. Urmila and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024A227/7513/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 challenging rejection of amendment application filed at appellate stage. Court dismissed petition, holding that due diligence was not shown and amendment would change the nature of the suit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Narendra Kumar and 3 Others vs Smt. Urmila… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113981

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7513 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- Smt. Urmila And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶7

Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 15.4.2024 passed by District Judge, Jhansi in Civil Appeal No.81 of 2022 (Narendra Kumar and others vs. Smt. Urmila Devi and others).

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at the appellate stage, he has moved amendment application under VII Rule 11 of CPC for amendment in written statement filed in original suit. By way of amendment application, he wants to add new facts i.e., petitioners are in possession of land in question openly peacefully without any hindrance and suit is barred by Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He further submitted that amendment application has been rejected vide order dated 15.4.2024 on the ground that nature of the suit would be changed and further no convincing ground has been given for filing amendment application at this belated stage. He lastly submitted that by way of amendment application there would not be any change in nature of the suit, therefore, order is bad and liable to be set aside.

¶9

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶10

Being confronted by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the Court about the reasons for filing amendment application at a very belated stage. In fact the condition of due diligence could not be filled up and further suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent on the ground of adverse possession and new facts so proposed to be amended would certainly change the nature of suit. Further, at the appellate stage without explanation of due diligence, such amendment application cannot be allowed.

¶11

This Court in the matter of Hari Shanker and 5 others vs. Bhagwati Prasad Mishra reported in 2014 (0) Supreme (All) 3127 and Shri Firoz Uddin and 4 others vs. Shri Anwar Uddin passed in Matters Under Article 227 No. 5213 of 2013 decided on 8.5.2023 has clearly held that condition of due diligence has to be satisfied and filled up. Likewise, Apex Court in the matter of Usha Balashabeb Swami & Others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and other reported in 2007 (3) Supreme (SC) 582 has also held that in case nature of suit is changed, amendment application cannot be allowed.

¶12

Under such facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court, I found no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 15.4.2024 passed by District Judge, Jhansi. Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Junaid

¶14

Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narendra Kumar and 3 Others v. Smt. Urmila and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Narendra Kumar and 3 Others v. Smt. Urmila and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Pratap Misra and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and Others

Surya Narayan Sharma and 44 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 8 Others

Rajendra Nath @ Rajendra Nath Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Arjun Mishra and 2 Others vs Kuber Mishra and 3 Others

Smt. Laltesh Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others