Dismissed

Amrit Lal v. Jairam

Chhattisgarh HC8 Feb 2017WP227/103/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged via writ under Article 227 the first additional district judge's order allowing a plaintiff's amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The appellant argued the amendment was unnecessary and repetitive. The court held it did not change the suit's nature or adversely affect defendants, dismissing this writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at the motion stage.

Amrit Lal Vs Jairam — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

W.P. (227) No. 103 of 2017

¶5

Amrit Lal S/o Aasharam, Aged About 65 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

Dwarika, S/o Aasharam, Aged About 55 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

Kedar, S/o Aasharam, Aged About 53 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

Urmila Bai, D/o Aasharam, Aged About 60 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

Kamal Lal, S/o Aasharam, Aged About 49 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Baratu, S/o Samaru, Aged About 60 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

Narayan, S/o Samaru, Aged About 55 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

Rajesh S/o Samaru, Aged About 45 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

Rajendra, S/o Samaru, Aged About 43 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

Jethuram, S/o Laharu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

Bhim Prasad, S/o Laharu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶16

Arjunlal, S/o Laharu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶17

Nakul, S/o Laharu, Aged About 43 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶18

Sahdev Kumar, S/o Laharu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶19

Krishan Kumar, S/o Laharu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶20

Krishankumari, D/o Laharu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶21

Ramkumari, D/o Laharu, Aged About 38 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶22

Shashi, D/o Lekharam, Aged About 25 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶23

Ashish Kumar, S/o Lekharam, Aged About 23 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶24

Sonu, S/o Lekharam, Aged About 21 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶25

Parwati W/o Lekharam, Aged About 45 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶26

¶27

Manharan Lal, S/o Bahoran, Aged About 60 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶28

---- Petitioners

¶29

Versus

¶30

Jairam S/o Mukundram, Aged About 69 Years R/o Sarkho, Tah. Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶31

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

¶32

---- Respondents

¶33

For Petitioners :- Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State :- Shri Neeraj Sharma Dy. G. A.

¶34

Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Shukla

¶35

Order On Board

¶36

08/02/2017

¶37

1 . The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed calling in question the order dated 28.11.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2015 by the First Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 has been allowed.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants submits that the Court below has allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff/ respondent No.1. By the said application, the plaintiff has sought amendment in para3 of the plaint. Learned counsel contends that the pleading sought to be incorporated in para-3 of the plaint by way of amendment is already available in para-4 of the plaint, therefore, the amendment in question is repetitive and unnecessary. Hence, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.

¶39

¶40

filed by the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 deserves to be rejected and the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants and perused the plaint, the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, reply of the defendants to the said amendment application and the impugned order carefully.

¶42

I find that the amendment sought to be incorporated in the plaint would not change the nature of the suit and would not affect the case of the defendants adversely. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the instant writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Anil Kumar Shukla) JUDGE

¶45

Santosh

Amrit Lal v. Jairam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Lal v. Jairam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivcharan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rishikesh Gupta Vs the State of M.P.

Gopi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhulsai and Ors. Vs the State of M.P.

Inder Sai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakhandas Vs State of Chhattisgarh