Dismissed¶5

Raj Kumar Verma @ Raju Verma and Anr. v. Addl.District Judge/F.T.C.Court NO.-1 Balrampur and Ors.

Allahabad HC11 Feb 2025A227/30100/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Matters Under Article 227 No. 30100 of 2019, Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Pankaj Bhatia J., decided 11.2.2025 (2025:AHC-LKO:8823). Keywords: amendment of plaint at appellate stage; rejection upheld; belated amendment (suit of 1994, application of 2019, three years after Appeal No.28 of 2016); lawyer's-preparation explanation not genuine ground; no application under Order 41 Rule 27; Gata No.658 / Gata No.1628; Thakur Prasad; Rita Devi; Abadi; order dated 24.09.2019; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The explanation offered for the amendment — that when the lawyer was preparing the case, he felt it necessary to amend the plaint — is not a genuine ground. ¶4

Raj Kumar Verma @ Raju Verma and Anr. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8823

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 30100 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Verma @ Raju Verma And Anr. Respondent :- Addl.District Judge/F.T.C.Court No.-1 Balrampur And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ali Counsel for Respondent :- Amol Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1 . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Amol Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶7

2 . The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 24.09.2019, whereby, the application filed for amendment of plaint at the appellate stage was rejected.

¶8

3 . The facts in brief are that the suit in question in between the parties was decreed after it being filed in the year 1994 vide judgment dated 19.08.2016. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal was preferred being Appeal No.28 of 2016. In the said appeal, an application was filed sometime in the year 2019 seeking amendment of the plaint. It was proposed to be argued through amendment that the property in question bearing Gata No.658 was earlier number as Gata No.1628. In the said suit, it was considered that the Gata No.658 was recorded in favour of one Thakur Prasad and thereafter Rita Devi and Gata No.1628 was recorded as Abadi. The explanation given in the amendment application was that when the lawyer was preparing the case, he felt that it was necessary to amend the plaint. The amendment application was filed in respect of a suit instituted in the year 1994 through an application filed in the year 2019 and that too after three years of the filing of the appeal.

¶9

4 . The explanation offered that when the lawyer was preparing the case, he felt that it was necessary to amend the plaint, would not be a genuine ground. The amendment is at highly belated stage and even otherwise, even no application under Order 41 Rule 27 was filed. The same was rightly rejected.

¶10

5 . In these circumstances, the order impugned does not warrant any interference at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 akverma

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar Verma @ Raju Verma and Anr. v. Addl.District Judge/F.T.C.Court NO.-1 Balrampur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Verma @ Raju Verma and Anr. v. Addl.District Judge/F.T.C.Court NO.-1 Balrampur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nirmla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Devakeenandan Vs Distt. Magistrate Distt. Gonda and 3 Others

Nikhil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Raj Kishor vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Shri. Durga Maa Shiksha Sewa Samiti, Thru. Authorized Representive, Dr. Virendra Kumar and Ors. vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy., Deptt. / Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Delhi and Others

Harish and 7 Ors. Vs Thakur Ji Beharji Maharaj Virajman Thakurdwara and 2 Ors.