Hari Ram And 24 Others vs Addl. District Judge Court No. 3, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 442 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 943 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Hari Ram And 24 Others
 
Respondent :- Addl. District Judge Court No. 3, Distt. Sultanpur And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mata Prasad Yadav,Akash
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard.

By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 26.02.2022 passed by the appellate Court in Civil Appeal no. 97 of 2012.

The facts of the case in brief are that a suit bearing no. 507 of 1990 (Hari Lal Vs. Ram Dular & Ors.) which was for permanent injunction was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 24.05.2012, thereafter, an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2012 was filed. The petitioners who are the appellants defendants filed an application for amendment of their written statement at the appellate stage seeking to incorporate certain new facts with reference to the written statement already filed and attempted to incorporate therein certain gata numbers etc. This amendment application has been rejected on the ground that the plaint does not mention Gata no's. 309, 310, 311?, 311?, 311?, 312, 322, 325 and 396 and the said Gatas have no connection with the land in dispute in the suit for permanent injunction and the defendants (appellants) had also not mentioned these gatas in their written statement nor had they mentioned therein about the existence of any pond towards the north of the disputed land and by means of the proposed amendment vide application 54?, they want to incorporate new facts, thereby changing their defence fundamentally and substantively which according to the learned Appellate Court was impermissible, especially as, the appellant defendants had filed their written statement in the suit before the trial Court in 1998 and prior to such filing, consolidation had already taken place.

Considering the fundamental changes sought to be brought in their written statement/defence at the appellate stage, the amendment application has been rejected in view of the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 as amended and the object behind such amendment. Furthermore, the appellate court has opined that the amendment application has been filed 10 years after the filing of the appeal and if it is allowed, it would change the very nature of the defence substantially and fundamentally, as also the evidence which has been read.

Having perused the reasons given by the Court below, this Court does not find any error in the same and considering the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 and the amendment brought therein, as also the object behind it, the reasons given by the appellate Court's order are germane to the subject matter in issue and the petition is devoid of merit.

The petition is dismissed in aforesaid terms.

Order Date :- 4.4.2022

Lokesh Kumar