CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Ram Das vs First Addl. District Judge,Azamgarh and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 19 February 2001 · Citation: (2001) 02 AHC CK 0061

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N.Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 17
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15353 of 1988
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 375 words

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2051988 passed by Respondent No. 1 rejecting the application of the defendantpetitioner for amendment in the writtenstatement filed by him in the appeal.

2.

Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiffrespondents filed Suit No. 296 of 1982 for permanent injunction restraining the defendantpetitioner from interfering with their possession over a piece of land claimed to be on the Abadi land. The defendantpetitioner filed his writtenstatement and denied the plaint allegations. Both the parties led evidence and the trial Court decreed the suit on 521986. The defendantpetitioner preferred an appeal No. 135 of 1987 against the judgment and order of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed an application for amendment in the writtenstatement. This application has been rejected by Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 2051988.

3.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no justification for Respondent No. 1 to reject the application of the defendantpetitioner for amendment in his writtenstatement.

4.

A perusal of the application of the defendantpetitioner for amendment in his writtenstatement indicates that the petitioner wanted to add in the end of paragraph 2 of the writtenstatement that plot Nos. 312,316and315 are the exclusive Bhumidhari land of the petitioner. It was further stated in the said application that plot Nos. 310 and 312 had been purchased by him by a registered saledeed and the plaintiffs had no concern with plot Nos. 15,316,310 and 312. The parties had led their pleadings and evidence in respect of their claim before the trial Court and there was no justification to amend the written statement in regard to the land in dispute. The plaintiff had to prove his case in respect of the identity of the land. In these circumstances the learned lower appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application of the defendantpetitioner for amendment in the writtenstatement at that stage.

5.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim stay order granted by this Court on 2681988 is here by vacated.

6.

The learned lower appellate Court shall now decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within three months.