Safaul Rahman v. Mohammad Khalil
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227, examined a rejection of an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC held to be belated. The Court held that while delay was a valid ground, the trial court failed to address limitation and due diligence, urging the parties to show why the matter could not have been raised earlier. Ultimately, it declined to interfere.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (C) No. 1486 of 2019
Safaul Rahman s/o Late Ashgar Ali .…… Petitioner Versus
1.Mohammad Khalil s/o Late Mohammad Hanif. 2.Md. Hatim s/o Md. Khalil. 3.Mohammad Naushad s/o Sahdat Kala. 4. Mohammad Nazim s/o Late Md. Ishwaue. 5.Mohammad Allauddin s/o Md. Ashlam. 6.Fidaul Rahman, s/o Late Ashgar Ali. 7.Razual Rahman, s/o Late Ashgar Ali. 8.Bibi Bano D/o Late Ashgar Ali. 9.Roshan Aara, D/o Late Ashgar Ali. 10.Nikhat Aara, D/o Late Ashgar Ali. …… Respondents
--------CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. B.V Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : -----------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
9/Dated: 17th July, 2019
- This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 05.02.2019 passed in T.S. No.74 of 2008 by which the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 dated 18.12.2018 has been rejected is under challenge.
- The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed T.S. No.74 of 2008 for declaration of right, title over the landed property in question, in which his title is on the basis of registered sale deed dated 27.01.1954 which has been said to be purchased by the mother of the plaintiff.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the refusal to allow amendment of pleadings solely on belated stage deprives the court of revisable jurisdiction under Article 227 to consider issues of limitation and due diligence.
Whether amendment of claim barred by limitation can be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC when relating back to the date of original suit.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of amendment petition when other legal grounds like limitation were not addressed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Safaul Rahman
- respondent
1.Mohammad Khalil
- respondent
2.Md. Hatim
- respondent
3.Mohammad Naushad
- respondent
4. Mohammad Nazim
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- WPC/1486/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Ms Chandra Construction Through Its Proprietor Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs The Union Of India Through Ministry Of Road Transport Andhighways And Ors.
Safiran Bibi Alias Sabiran Bibi And Anr. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department
Dil Mohammad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary
Rameshwar Thakur And Ors. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department