Dismissed

Anushtha Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. J. Venkatrao

Chhattisgarh HC18 May 2018WP227/476/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition seeking an order for amendment of a written statement under CPC. The Court held that allowing such amendment at the final hearing stage prima facie prejudges the issue of the plaintiff's capacity to sue.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition for amendment of written statement dismissed at admission stage.

Anushtha Builders and Colonizers Pvt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

W.P.(227) No. 476 of 2018

¶4

Anushtha Builders & Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. Junwani, Khamhariya Road, Junwani, Chhattisgarh, (Pn.Kra.E- 04520 City 2005) P.T.C. 17505 Gwalior, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶5

Through Its Director, Raghvendra Das Vaishnav, S/o. Late Narendra Das Vaishnav, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. Anushtha Residency, Junwani, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

J. Venkatrao S/o. Late J. Veerbhadra Rao, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Murra, Kumhari, Tahsil Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶9

J.V. Rajkumar, S/o. Late J. Veerbhadra Rao, Aged About 40 Years R/o. 1213-588/H/3, Street No.4, Tarnaka, Sikandarabad (Andhra Pradesh)

¶10

G. Sambshivram, S/o. G. Venkat Krishnarao, Aged About 45 Years R/o. Kohka, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Through Smt. J. Sheshratnamma, W/o. J. Veerbhadrarao, R/o Village Murra, Kumhari, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh) And R/o. Purushotpattanam, District Krishna (Andhra)

¶11

G. Ponchandrarao, S/o G. Venkat Krishnarao, Aged About 46 Years R/o. Kohka, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Through Smt. J. Sheshratnamma, W/o. J. Veerbhadrarao, R/o. Village Murra, Kumhari, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh) (Since Died) And R/o. Purushotpattanam Mandal Gavannvaram, Gram Panchayat Purushotpattanam, District Krishna (Andhra)

¶12

Smt. Padma D/o. G. Venkat Krishnarao, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Kohka, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) (Through Smt. J. Sheshratnamma, W/o. J. Veerbhadrarao, R/o. Village Murra, Kumhari, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh) (Since Died) And R/o. Purushotpattanam Mandal Gavannvaram, Gram Panchayat Purushotpattanam, District Krishna (Andhra)

¶13

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector/ Ex-Officio, District Office Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For State : Mr. S.K.Mishra, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board

18.05.2018

Heard

The present petition is against the order dated 11.05.2018 wherein an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. was dismissed.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the suit was filed by the Director Raghvendra Das Vaishnav. Subsequently, during course of trial, the petitioner/ plaintiff has proved his capacity to file the suit and has proved the resolution of the Company and the memorandum of association. It is stated that there was denial by the defendant that the Director who has signed the plaint do not have the power to file a suit. It is stated that the evidence is on record and resolution of company to file the suit is proved. It is stated that if denial of such facts in written statement is not incorporated in the plaint, it may cause prejudice to parties; therefore, the amendment was moved to deny the pleading of the defendant that the plaintiff has right to file the suit.

¶23

Perusal of the order would show that the case is fixed for final hearing. It is for the plaintiff to succeed on his own strength. If the plaintiff has proved the authority to file the suit by the competent person on behalf of the Company and is covered under the resolution of company and the memorandum of association, it is for the trial Court to evaluate the same. Simply denial of the defendants that the plaintiff do not have any right to file the suit will not ipso facto decide the merits of the case. Therefore, the amendment petition, at this stage, prima facie would be a prejudging the issue.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition has no merit and it is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶25

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶26

Ashok

Anushtha Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. J. Venkatrao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anushtha Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. v. J. Venkatrao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shabbir Hussain Vs Maulana Tufail Ahmed and Ors.

Idrish Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Komal Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Pal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Pathak Vs State of Madhya Pradesh ( Presently State of Chhattisgarh)

Mohammed Akmal Rizvi Vs Mamta Yadav