Ramesh Kumar Shukla and 2 Others Vs Ramakant Shukla and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6663 of 2025

¶3

Ramesh Kumar Shukla And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ramakant Shukla And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Samarth Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pushpila Bisht, Amit Kumar Awasthi, Garima Dixit

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Court No. - 19

¶9

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶10

Miss Pushpila Bisht has filed her vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents, the same is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Shri Samarth Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Miss Pushpila Vish, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶12

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Civil Appeal Number 82 of 2025, whereby the application for amendment filed by the petitionerappellant has been dismissed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 694 of 2003, which was filed for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. The civil suit was dismissed by the court of first instance vide the judgment and order dated 22.8.2025.

¶14

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs-appellants filed civil appeal before the District Judge, which is still pending in the court of Additional District Judge V, Lakhimpur Kheri. During the pendency of the appeal,

¶15

A227 No. 6663 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

an interim order was passed by the appellate court on 28.08.2025 to the effect that the parties shall maintain status quo till the next date fixed. However, in violation of the interim order, the defendants-respondents digged foundation in the disputed land and erected two walls in eastern and western sides of four feet height and installed a gate therein, and on the southern side, a pillar was constructed on which wires are installed. The plaintiffs moved an application for amendment on 9.10.2025 before the appellate court with a prayer to make amendment in the plaint for demolition of construction made by the defendants-respondents during the pendency of the appeal and in the teeth of the interim injunction order passed by the appellate court. However, learned appellate court has dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that the measurements of the constructions are not given and the commission report in existence of any foundation is not shown, therefore, the amendment application appears to be vague and misleading.

¶18

He further submitted that inadequacy of pleadings are not grounds to reject an amendment application in-as-much as in the objection dated 28.10.25 against the said amendment application, the defendants-respondents have admitted in para2 that the foundation was already there in the disputed land on which wires were installed. The plaintiff had tried to grab the land on 25.7.2003 and the foundation is existing since then. The respondents have stated that after the judgment on 23/7/2025, half of the erected wall was completed and the gate was fixed therein. However, it is stated that no construction has been done after the passing of the interim order.

¶19

Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order passed by the first appellate court is well within the parameters of law and the amendment application has not been filed in bona fide manner and wrong facts are mentioned therein. The constructions which are already there on the disputed land are shown to have been

¶20

A227 No. 6663 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

raised in violation of the injunction order in the said amendment application. If any violation of the interim order was done by the respondents, the plaintiffs/ appellants are well within their rights to file contemp application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for disobedience of the injunction order. Pleadings made in the amendment are akin to pleadings which are duly made in the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC for the disobedience of order of temporary injunction.

¶23

Be that as it may, on a bare perusal of amendment application the things are clear and act of respondents is specifically mentioned therein. It makes no difference that the same pleading may be filed in an application under Order 39 Rule 2- A CPC, if the appellants prefer to file the same. However, the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, seeking amendments of pleadings for demolition of construction are of different nature and a person may seek both remedies are make a choice regarding one of it. The plaintiffs cannot be restrained to seek demolition of constructions which is allegedly raised during the pendency of the appeal and in teeth of interim injunction order. The truthfulness of the allegations in the amendment application regarding which amendment is sought is not to be examined by the court concerned while deciding the amendment application. It is incumbent upon the parties to seek amendment in the pleadings to prove the facts that are brought in the pleadings by way of amendment. The guidelines on allowing or rejecting an amendment application are whether in view of the proposed amendment the nature of the suit changes, or the party is trying to withdraw its admission earlier made to the detriment of other sides or whether the proposed amendment is likely to avoid multiplicity of suit and is necessary for adjudication of the matter in controversy involved in the suit or appeal. It is not a ground to reject an application in amendment that plaintiffs have not given measurement of the alleged construction. It is to be seen by the appellate court as to whether the construction

¶24

A227 No. 6663 of 2025

¶25

4

¶26

was already there or it was made after the filing of the appeal and issuance of the interim order on the basis of evidence appearing on the record or any additional evidence which may be adduced with the permission of the court by parties concerned. The learned trial court has committed a legal error by rejecting the application for amendment on grounds that are alien to dismissing or allowing the amendment application .

¶27

Accordingly, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is allowed .

¶28

The appellate court is directed to hear and decide the amendment application afresh in light of the observations made herein, after giving an opportunity of a hearing to both sides.

¶29

November 18, 2025 dk/

¶30

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶31

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

Ramesh Kumar Shukla and 2 Others v. Ramakant Shukla and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Shukla and 2 Others v. Ramakant Shukla and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Verma @ Shanti Bhushan Singh Vs Harishankar Singh and Another

Shri Heera Lal Shukla Vs Shiv Mohan Singh

Sitaram Mishra Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division ) Gonda and 2 Others

Smt. Ladaitee @ Ram Ladaitee and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manoj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ramesh Kumar Shukla and 2 Others vs Ramakant Shukla and 4 Others