Petition under Article 227 challenging an interlocutory order allowing amendment of pleadings. The court found no ground to interfere with the trial court's discretionary exercise and, noting the suit pending since 1999, directed expeditious completion of the suit hearing within one year.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12431
Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10656 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ram Dev Respondent :- Triloki Counsel for Petitioner :- Maya Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Purushottam Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The present petition arises out of an interlocutory order allowing the amendment application. I do not see any reason to interfere with the discretionary exercise by the trial court.
As the suit is pending since the year 1999, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to complete the hearing of the said suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Ashutosh
Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with a trial court order allowing an amendment application?
Ram Dev
Triloki
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
