Allowed

Hemao Devi Sahu v. Saumya Deep Sharma @ Abhinav Sharma

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2019WP227/10/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of an application to amend a plaint by the trial Court. The High Court examined the stage of proceedings and the nature of the amendment relating to court fee, finding the trial Court unjustified in its rejection.

What did the court decide?

Application for amendment of plaint allowed; amendment permitted within 10 days of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Hemao Devi Sahu Vs Saumya Deep Sharma @… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No.10 of 2019

¶5

Hemao Devi Sahu wife of Shri Sakal Dev Sahu, aged about 53 years, resident of R.D. Heights Room No.305, behind Rama Green City, Khamtarai Raod, Sarkanda, Tahsil & District-Bilaspur (CG)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Saumya Deep Sharma @ Abhinav Sharma, aged about 28 years, son of Bhupendra Sharma, Caste-Bramhan, resident of Nirala Nagar, near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (CG)

¶9

Ashutosh Kesharwani, aged about 24 years, son of Virendra Kesharwani, resident of Kashyap Colony, R.K. Boot House Street No.4, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (CG)

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Bilaspur (CG)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner :	Mr.Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 and 2 :	Mr.Himanshu Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 :	Ms Shivali Dubey, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

06/08/2019

¶16

By the impugned order, the plaintiff's application for amendment has been rejected by the trial Court.

¶17

Mr.Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application for amendment as even written statement has not been filed by the defendants and amendment is relating to payment of court fee, therefore, it ought to have allowed.

¶18

On the other hand, Mr.Himanshu Sinha, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, would support the impugned order.

¶19

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶21

Taking into consideration the stage of trial as written statement is yet to be filed by the defendants and amendment is relating to payment of court fee, the application for amendment is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to amend his plaint within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the defendants are also at liberty to raise all permissible plea in written statement, if already not raised.

¶22

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition finally stands disposed of. No cost(s).

¶23

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶24

B/-

Hemao Devi Sahu v. Saumya Deep Sharma @ Abhinav Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemao Devi Sahu v. Saumya Deep Sharma @ Abhinav Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagela Vs Moti Lal and Others

Subhash and Others Vs Bahura Bai and Others

Itwari and Others Vs Karuna and Others

Lakhan Lal and Others Vs Asharam and Another

Smt.Sumitra Devi Vs Somarsai (Died) through Legal HRs.

Govind Lal Agrawal Vs Abdul Gafur