Dismissed¶¶32

Manna Lal and Another v. Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 1 Unnao and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025A227/5170/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition dismissed; amendment application rejected under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; right of preemption held to be question of fact; no reason given for delay in seeking amendment after trial concluded; liberty to raise plea at final hearing.

What did the court decide?

The proposed amendment is not a pure question of law; right of preemption is essentially a question of fact requiring evidence and is not absolute. ¶¶23

Manna Lal and Another Vs Addl. Distt. Judge Court… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5170 of 2025

¶3

Manna Lal And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 1 Unnao And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adnan Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 7

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge-I, Unnao in Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2014, whereby an application for amendment moved by the plaintiffs-appellants before the First Appellate Court has been rejected.

¶13

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the plaintiffs-appellants (before the First Appellate Court) had initially instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, which came to be registered as R.S. No.263 of 2004. Certain clear grounds for challenging the sale-deed has been mentioned in Para-5 of the plaint in suit. One of the grounds, inter-alia , stated that the defendant No.1 of the suit, namely, Nikhil Shankar had impersonated his brother, namely, Shiv Shankar and executed the alleged sale-deed of which cancellation was sought.

¶14

It is further urged that it is in furtherance of the said plea a legal ground was sought to be introduced before the First Appellate Court by means of the proposed amendment which has been rejected by the First Appellate Court.

¶15

It is further submitted that the fact as proposed in the amendment was to the effect that upon the death of the brother, namely, Shiv Shanker, the

¶16

A227 No. 5170 of 2025

¶17

¶18

other brother i.e. the plaintiffs-appellants had a right of preemption/right to purchase the property as a preferential heir and this was sought to be introduced by raising a plea seeking amendment in the plaint before the First Appellate Court and it is urged that there was no legal impediment in allowing the same.

¶19

It was also submitted that since it was a legal plea, hence, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in rejecting the same.

¶20

The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

¶21

From a bare perusal of the plaint, in Para-5 several grounds for seeking cancellation of the sale-deed in question have been raised. The matter had gone to trial and the trial Court by means of the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2014 had dismissed the suit against which the Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2014 was engaging the attention of the First Appellate Court.

¶22

It is at a much later stage that an application for amendment has been moved before the First Appellate Court, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.4.

¶23

At the outset, it may be noticed that the proposed amendment is not a pure question of law as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners inasmuch as even a right of preemption is essentially a question of fact for which evidence would be required and it is not as if the said right is absolute.

¶24

It is also relevant to notice that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was amended in the year 2002 and in Order VI Rule 17, a proviso has been appended wherein it indicates that a person seeking amendment must indicate as to why the said amendment could not be introduced prior to the commencement of the trial.

¶25

Noticing the said mandate of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and in that light, if the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is viewed, it would indicate that there is no worthwhile reasons given at

¶26

A227 No. 5170 of 2025

¶27

¶28

all in the application as to why the said plea was not raised prior to commencement of trial.

¶29

The trial concluded in the year 2014 by passing of the judgment which has been assailed in the first appeal in the year 2014, yet an application for amendment was moved in the year 2015 and there is no cogent reason as to why the same was not introduced earlier.

¶30

Taking view of the reasoning given by the First Appellate Court in light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no error committed by the First Appellate Court in rejecting the application for amendment.

¶31

Having said that this Court further observes that even though as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he wishes to raise the legal plea, in case if it is permissible in law, without introducing the said amendment, it will be open for the petitioners to raise the same before the First Appellate Court, which needless to say shall considered on its own merits at the time of deciding the appeal finally.

¶32

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed .

¶33

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶34

September 3, 2025

¶35

Rakesh/-

¶36

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

Manna Lal and Another v. Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 1 Unnao and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manna Lal and Another v. Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 1 Unnao and 5 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Bahadur Singh Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager and 3 Others

Smt. Rekha Devi Vs Smt. Suryakali and 5 Others

Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Mr. Kamlesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Jindal Restaurants Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Shri Ujjwal Gupta Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal 600/1 Thru. Presiding Officer Lko. and 5 Others

Gyani vs Shri R.K. Choudhary

Prithvi Pal vs Smt. Ranjana Awasthi and 3 Others