Ramveer Singh And 4 Others vs Harbal And 10 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 20745 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11376 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Ramveer Singh And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- Harbal And 10 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Daya Shanker Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the order dated 08.11.2022 whereby the Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.94 of 2016 (Harbal and others Vs. Ramveer and others), has allowed the amendment application of the plaintiffs-respondents for bringing a new relief and certain other amendments in the plaint.

The facts of the case are that an application for amendment was filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for injunction to the effect that during pendency of the suit possession of the property is wrongly taken over by the defendants-respondents and certain constructions are also raised therein. In the said background, plaintiffs prayed that the amendments are necessary. The objection raised by the defendants-petitioners to the amendment application was that a new cause of action is being raised by the plaintiffs-respondents after much delay of time.

The Appellate Court has considered the application and found that the amendments are necessary as spot situation is alleged to have been changed by the defendants-petitioners during pendency of the proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly submitted that the impugned order is illegal inasmuch as the proper findings are not given by the Appellate Court. He further submits that there is much delay in seeking the amendment, therefore, the amendment application should not have been allowed. He also disputes the fact that construction is being raised over the property in dispute.

So far as the findings recorded by the Appellate Court are concerned, I find that the Appellate Court has passed a detailed judgment and all the facts are duly noted by the Appellate Court. The delay in seeking the amendment itself is not a sufficient ground as the allegations are that the changes with regard to the property in dispute by raising constructions by the defendants are made during pendency of the proceedings, therefore, for complete and proper adjudication of the case the amendments appear to be necessary.

So far as the last submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no constructions are raised over the property in dispute is concerned, the same can only be decided by leading evidence after the amendments are made.

Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Appellate Court, allowing the amendment application.

Hence, no interference is called for.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Vivek Chaudhary,J.)

Order Date :- 12.12.2022

Arjun/-