Jagdish Narain vs Subhash Chandra Gupta & Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 3223 ALL

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 3223 ALL
Judgement Date : 30 May, 2016

Allahabad High Court

Jagdish Narain vs Subhash Chandra Gupta & Another on 30 May, 2016

Bench: Sunita Agarwal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 
Case:- WRIT - A No. - 26279 of 2016
 
Petitioner :- Jagdish Narain
 
Respondent :- Subhash Chandra Gupta & Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Verma,Devesh Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

The order passed in amendment application 240-A1 is under challenge.

By means of the said amendment application, it is pleaded by the tenant that an exparte injunction has been granted in his favour on 09.03.2011 in an Original Suit No. 257 of 2010 which was filed on 01.12.2010. A perusal of the plaint of Original Suit No.257 of 10 indicates that it is alleged by the tenant therein that the cause of action for filing the injunction suit arose on 27.11.2010 when the landlord removed the wall of store adjacent to the shop in question.

The release application has been filed with the categorical assertion that the petitioner is tenant of one shop, boundaries of which has been given at the foot of the plaint. Submission of the petitioner is that the boundaries have been amended later on i.e. by order dated 20.12.2011. However, the amendment application filed by the landlord and the objection of the petitioner are not on record. It is admitted to the petitioner that no affidavit in rebuttal has been filed by the petitioner thereafter.

Moreover, it is an exparte decree passed on 02.03.2016. It is open for the petitioner to bring these facts by means of the an affidavit which is accepted in evidence. No amendment of the written statement is required to plead this fact.

The Prescribed Authority shall consider the plea taken by the petitioner in the affidavit, if filed before it and after giving due opportunity to the respondents shall take an appropriate decision on the issue raised by the tenant in accordance with law.

In view of the above, no interference is required in the order impugned.

With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 30.5.2016

Himanshu