Dismissed
Bharat Lal v. Snehil Singh and Ors.
Chhattisgarh HCWP227/880/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR…
What the court decided
AI extract
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR…
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.
'IN
$£ §§§££ EEMH THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR (C.G.)
. rw.P 22? V- %Q
‘PETITIONE_R/ Plaintiff
Bharat‘Lal, aged about 56 years, . S/o. Bhikhari Satnami, resident of ' V Village~ Rampur,' Tahsil' Mungeli, H; ’Bilaspur ' i'u ,V District (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS/
.
Defendants
1.. Snehil Singh, aged about 28 years, .S/o. Santosh Kumar Singh, Tarbahar, Near ' Primary School, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. Uttara Kumar alias Vijaya Kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o. Bharat . La! Satnami, Near Primary Schoo‘l, 'nrTar—bahar, Bilaspur, Tahsii & - District Bilaspur (C.G.). ‘3. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.).
'WRIT>227 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950.
<4?
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR W.P. (227) NO. 880 OF 2011
PETI’HONER (PLA!NT£FF)
: BharatLaI
Versus
RESPONDENTS/ : Snehil Singh and others. (DEFENDANTS) WRH’ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
RESPONDENTS/ (DEFENDANTS)
(SinqleBench: Hon‘ble Shri N.K. Agarwal,J.)
Present : ShriMD‘Sharma,counselfcrthe‘ petitioner.
ORAL ORDER
(Passed0n8‘“dayofMarch,2011)
The instant petition is directed againsttheorderdated15- 07-2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class—I, Mungeii, District Bilaspur in Civii Suit No.10—A/2007 whereby the petitioner’s appiication under Order 6 Ruie 17 ofCodeofCivii Procedure (hereinafterreferredtoas‘theCPC’)wasdismissed.
Plaintiff instituted a suit claiming relief of deciaration on the ground: the suit property is joint famiiy property and defendant No. 2 has no right to transfer it in any manner to defendant No.1. Plaintiff’s evidence was closed. Thereafter, he moved an application for amendmentof plaint. The same was dismissed by the Trial Court.
“19. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the
parties. Only if such a condition is fuifiiied, the amendment is to be allowed However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the Court. lt puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court’s jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction to all to allow the amendment of the plaint". 5. The aforesaid proposition of law is binding on this Court. By applying‘ the aforesaid proposition of law to the facts of the presentcase, it is clear that the petitioner has not assigned any reason whatsoever why he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial?
Sdl-
N_K. Agrawa‘
Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the Trial Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's amendment of plaint.
Whether the Trial Court committed any illegality or irregularity in disallowing the amendment application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and anotherExplained¶28
Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another; 200Q (2) SCC 409
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bharat Lal
Snehil Singh
Uttara Kumar alias Vijaya Kumar
State of Chhattisgarh
N.K. Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court