Civil Revision dismissing appeal against interlocutory order allowing plaint amendment. High Court held issues like res judicata and limitation are not germane for amendment at pre-trial stage and resumed trial must be expedited.
Revision dismissed; directions to expedite trial and ensure parties do not misuse amendment liberty.
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:27097
Court No. - 8
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 77 of 2017
Revisionist :- Dhirendra Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Smt. Chitra Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vinod Kumar Singh,Sachchidanand Mishra
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
The instant revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC assailing the order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC, Balrampur in Regular Suit No.145 of 2015 (Smt. Chitra Singh and others v. Dhirendra Singh and others), whereby an application moved by the plaintiffs/respondents herein seeking amendment in plaint has been allowed.
The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the order impugned is bad on account of two reasons:-
(i) The prayer as sought to be incorporated by the plaintiffs vide the amendment is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC.
(ii) It is also stated that the relief sought to be introduced by amendment was barred by limitation and thus, for both the reasons which have not been appropriately considered by the trial Court, it makes the order dated 04.05.2017 susceptible to the judicial intervention.
The aforesaid submission is refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents, who submits that both the grounds as raised by the revisionists cannot be taken note of while considering an application for amendment.
It is urged that the aforesaid plea is the subject matter which can only be considered by framing of an issue and on this ground, the application for amendment cannot be rejected. The order passed by the trial Court is in consonance with law, hence, there is no error muchless jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the revision is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be dismissed.
The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.
The Court finds that the plaintiffs-respondents had instituted a Regular Suit No.145 of 2017, whereby they had already sought a relief of declaration and injunction. Later, on 13.04.2017, an application for amendment was moved by the plaintiffsrespondents proposing to amend the plaint and incorporate certain paragraphs including addition of a relief seeking cancellation of a sale-deed dated 18.12.2012. This came to be opposed by the revisionists, however, the trial Court considering the said application, it allowed the same and has submitted that in order to examine the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was taken and it was found that the issues have not yet been framed.
Since, the plaint was at a pre-trial amendment, accordingly, considering the fact that the issue as raised by the revisionists could have been considered at the time of merits and is not a germane issue to be considered at the time of consideration of an application for amendment, accordingly, the trial Court allowed the said application for amendment.
This Court having considered the said reasons finds that insofar as the plea of Order II Rule 2 CPC is concerned that is absolutely immaterial while considering the plea of amendment. Whether Order II Rule 2 CPC actually applies in the facts of the matter is a subject matter of the trial Court upon which the parties will be required to give evidence. Moreover, the issue of delay is also not as grave as to make the application for amendment not maintainable especially when it was pre trial amendment. All the issues which have been raised are the subject matter of trial and it cannot be said that the trial Court had committed an error in allowing the application for amendment.
This Court finds that the order impugned dated 04.05.2017 does not suffer from any error, the same is confirmed. The revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed .
Since, the suit is pending since the year 2015 and despite the fact that no interim order was passed in the instant revision and yet only issues have been framed, hence, this Court deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial. In case, if any of the parties tries to misuse the liberty, appropriate costs and orders be passed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Rakesh/-
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plea of limitation and res judicata under Order II Rule 2 CPC is maintainable during pre-trial amendment of plaint.
Whether the trial court committed any error in allowing the amendment application before framing issues.
Whether the lower court had the jurisdiction to allow the amendment seeking cancellation of sale deed.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhirendra Singh And 2 Others
Smt. Chitra Singh And 2 Others
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
