Dismissed¶¶9

Pramod Kumar Sharma v. Ashwini Kumar Mittal

Uttarakhand HC1 Jul 2026WPMS/1466/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of plaint; leave to amend plaint rejected; Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; Article 227 Constitution of India; writ petition WPMS; suit for permanent injunction; temporary injunction rejected; prima facie case; possession over land; parking and profit from land; delay of more than eight years; amendment not bona fide; amendment not clarificatory; new plea; Revisional Court judgment 12.05.2026; Civil Judge (S.D.) Haridwar; Original Suit No. 18 of 2018; Uttarakhand High Court; Manoj Kumar Tiwari; writ petition dismissed 01.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter: even though the reasoning given by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perfect, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the rejection of the petitioner's amendment application calls for no interference.

Pramod Kumar Sharma Vs Ashwini Kumar Mittal — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

¶1

UKHC010085162026

¶2

2026:UHC:5206

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1466/2026 Pramod Kumar Sharma … Petitioner Versus Ashwini Kumar Mittal … Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. This is plaintiff’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar in Original Suit No. 18 of 2018. By the said order, petitioner’s application, seeking leave to amend the plaint, was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed revision petition, which also was dismissed by Revisional Court vide judgment dated 12.05.2026. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging these two orders. 4. Petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction. His application, seeking temporary injunction, was rejected by trial court by holding that he could not establish his_prima facie_case for grant of interim relief. The view taken by trial court was affirmed by Appellate Court. Petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking permission to add a sentence in para 2 of the plaint. The sentence, which he sought to add goes on to say that,“plaintiff is using the land in question as parking and is also earning profit from the said land, and further that the defendant has no concern with the possession or title qua the land in

¶4

UKHC010085162026

¶5

2026:UHC:5206

¶6

question”. 5. Learned trial court rejected the application seeking leave to amend the plaint by holding that since petitioner could not prove his prima facie case and possession over the land in question, therefore, he cannot be granted leave to amend the plaint, in the manner prayed by him. 6. Learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by petitioner by a detailed judgment dated 12.05.2026 by holding that amendment sought is not bona fide; there is delay of more than eight years in seeking leave to amend the plaint. Learned Revisional Court further held that although any observation made by trial court, while deciding temporary injunction application, is not binding, however, that may be taken note of while considering prayer for amending the plaint. Learned Revisional Court further held that amendment sought is not clarificatory but by amendment, petitioner wants to introduce a new plea. 7. It is not in dispute that after exchange of pleadings, issues were framed in the suit long back. 8. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Even though the reasoning given by learned trial court cannot be said to be perfect, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, rejection of petitioner’s amendment application calls for no interference. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 01.07.2026 Aswal

¶7

NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.01 05:32:36 -07'00'

¶8

UKHC010085162026

¶9

2026:UHC:5206

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 12.05.2026 of the Revisional Court dismissing the petitioner's revision petition filed against rejection of his application seeking leave to amend the plaint.¶¶3
Revisional Court · 12.05.2026
Prior proceeding
Order dated 20.01.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar in Original Suit No. 18 of 2018 rejecting petitioner's application seeking leave to amend the plaint.¶¶3
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction.¶¶4
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's application seeking temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court on the ground that he could not establish his prima facie case for grant of interim relief.¶¶4
Prior proceeding
The Appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the trial court on the temporary injunction application.¶¶4
Prior proceeding
Petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to add a sentence in para 2 of the plaint.¶¶4
Prior proceeding
The sentence sought to be added stated that the plaintiff is using the land in question as parking, earning profit from it, and that the defendant has no concern with the possession or title qua the land in question.¶¶4
Prior proceeding
The trial court rejected the amendment application, holding that since the petitioner could not prove his prima facie case and possession over the land, leave to amend could not be granted in the manner prayed.¶¶6
Prior proceeding
The Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition by a detailed judgment dated 12.05.2026, holding that the amendment sought is not bona fide and noting a delay of more than eight years in seeking leave to amend the plaint.¶¶6
Prior proceeding
The Revisional Court held that although any observation made by the trial court while deciding the temporary injunction application is not binding, it may be taken note of while considering the prayer for amending the plaint.¶¶6
Prior proceeding
The Revisional Court further held that the amendment sought is not clarificatory but seeks to introduce a new plea.¶¶6
Prior proceeding
After exchange of pleadings, issues were framed in the suit long back; this is not in dispute.¶¶7

Pramod Kumar Sharma v. Ashwini Kumar Mittal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Sharma v. Ashwini Kumar Mittal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Devi Verma Vs Excise Commissioner State of Uttarakhand

Mahant Dev Giri Vs State of Uttarakhand through Chief Treasury Officer

Urmila Devi Vs Pushpa Agarwal

Smt. Rajesh Kumari @ Rajbala Vs State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary Govt. of Uttarakhand Dehradun

M/S Rahul Sugar Products Khasra Vs Bank of India

Ms Mrinal Enterprises Khet No 4 Vs Punjab and Sind Bank