The Allahabad High Court, while setting aside an order rejecting an amendment application observed that proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC inserted through amendment in 2002, would not apply to the suits, which are pending before the date of the amendment, therefore, this cannot be ground to reject the amendment application.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners filed a suit before the trial Court for the return of land and payment of compensation and at the stage of final hearing, they filed an amendment application for formal amendment to ensure the return of land and compensation in favour of the trust and not the private person, which was rejected on the ground that it has been filed at very belated stage. The present petition was filed challenging this order.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though the due diligence of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC inserted through amendment in 2002 has not been referred to any of the order, but the crux of impugned order is based upon the lack of due diligence. Further, it was submitted that the amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC shall not apply to a suit, which was instituted before which pleadings have been exchanged.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that there is no dispute on the point that Mr R.A.N. Sinha created the trust in the year 1973, and now the trust is having a dispute with Respondent No. 2 with regard to excess land acquisition. Further, the court stated that after amendment, in case the suit is decreed, either land or compensation as the case may be would be vested with the trust and not with the individual persons and thus the intention of filing of the amendment is bonafide.
Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of State of Hyderabad vs Town Municipal Council and stated that proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC inserted through amendment in 2002, would not be applicable to the suits, which are pending prior to the date of the amendment, therefore, this cannot be ground to reject the amendment application.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order.
Case Title: The Sinha Development Trust and Anr. vs. State of UP and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Neeraj Tiwari
Case No.: Matters Under Article 227 No. - 9021 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Nipun Singh, Sumit Suri
Advocate for the Respondent: Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, C.S.C., Krishna Mohan Asthana
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
