Disposed

Sher Ali Mir and Ors. v. Manzoor Ahmad Mir and Anr.

J&K HC8 Oct 2020CM(M)/90/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir disposed of two applications. It allowed an extension of time for filing petition documents pending court reopening. Regarding a writ petition challenging the rejection of a plaint amendment, the Court found no jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file affidavit, stamp and court fee within three days; writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach trial court afresh.

Sher Ali Mir and Ors. Vs Manzoor Ahmad Mir and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | J&K HC (2020)

¶1

S. No. 104

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR (Through Video Conference)

¶3

CM No. 4252/2020 CM(M) No. 90/2020

¶4

Sher Ali Mir and ors.

¶5

...Petitioner/Applicant(s)

¶6

Through :- Ms. S. Tabasum Zaffar Jalali, Advocate (on video call)

¶7

V/s

¶8

Manzoor Ahmad Mir and anr.

¶9

.....Respondent (s)

¶10

Through :-

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶12

(through Video Conference from residence in Jammu)

¶13

ORDER 08.10.2020

¶14

CM No. 4252/2020

¶15

The instant application has been filed by the petitioners seeking extension of time for filing the affidavit, stamp and court fee etc in support of the petition.

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The petitioners shall do the needful within a period of three days, when the normal functioning of the Courts begins.

¶17

Application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶18

CM(M) No. 90/2020

¶19

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 25.02.2020 by virtue of which the petitioners’ application seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected by the trial court only on the ground that the petitioners have narrated false and contradictory facts in the amended

¶20

CM(M) No. 90/2020

¶21

¶22

plaint. The application for amendment of the plaint was made by the petitioners and the crux of the amendment sought to be made was that they have been dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the litigation. The facts contradictory and wrongly pleaded by the petitioners have been narrated by the trial court in its order including errors pertaining to the pedigree table of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the error so far as pertains to pedigree table is concerned the same is due to typographical error and also that those were not very material on the basis of which the trial court could have rejected the application. The trial court could have asked the petitioners to rectify the same.

¶23

Be that as it may, the learned trial court has not decided the application with regard to the amendment regarding the dispossession of the petitioners during the pendency of the litigation and also as to whether the said amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. Even the trial court in the order impugned has stated that it has not entered into the other aspects of the application. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the amendment of the plaint as the wrong and contradictory facts pleaded by the petitioners would have led to the confusion only. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order assailed by the petitioners, that warrants interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the petitioners may be granted liberty to approach the trial court by way of fresh application with correct facts as the learned trial court has itself stated that it has not gone into other aspects of the matter.

¶24

CM(M) No. 90/2020

¶25

¶26

In view of above, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial court afresh. Any observation made by this Court is solely for the purpose of disposal of the present petition and shall have no bearing upon the merits of the case.

¶27

This petition is disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

JAMMU 08.10.2020 Rakesh

¶30

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/N o

¶31

RAKESH KUMAR 2020.10.09 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sher Ali Mir and Ors. v. Manzoor Ahmad Mir and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Ali Mir and Ors. v. Manzoor Ahmad Mir and Anr.

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

Mohammad Ishaq and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Water Resources)

Maheen Azhar Akroo Vs Sadaf Niyaz Shah and Anr.

Mohammad Baqir Wazir Vs Union Territory of Ladakh and Anr. (Forest Department)

Mohammad Lateef Khan and Ors. Vs Mohammad Amin Gojwari and Ors.

Mohammad Abdullah Mir and Ors. Vs Mohammad Akbar Ganie

Mohammad Qasim Baba Vs Idara Abul Fazal Abass

Abdul Majeed Dar Vs Ghulam Hassan Ghazi

Abdul Rashid Yatoo and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Revenue Department)

Abdul Hamid Ganie Vs Asha Begum and Ors.

Abdul Rahim Rather and Anr. Vs State through Director General of Police and Ors. (Home Department)

Tanveer Ahmad Sheergojri Vs State of J and K and Ors. (Home Department)

Parvez Ahmad War and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Revenue Department)

Mst. Zareefa Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Revenue Department)

Mohammad Yousuf Sheikh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Passport)