Allahabad High Court
Ram Mahesh And Another vs Apar Janpad Nyayadhish And Others on 5 May, 2022
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3479 of 2001
Petitioner :- Ram Mahesh And Another
Respondent :- Apar Janpad Nyayadhish And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Yadav,Manik Chandra Yadav,S.A. Ansari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hardev Prajapati
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Learned counsel for the respondent is not present even in the revised list.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners by means of present writ petition have assailed the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by Pratham Janpad Nyayadhish, Court No.1, Azamgarh-respondent no.1, by which their application for amendment in plaint has been dismissed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the amendment is not required as map of commissioner is on record and therefore, the amendment application deserves to be dismissed.
Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the suit has been partly decreed by judgment dated 05.03.1992 and decree dated 12.03.1992. The petitioners being dissatisfied by the part of decree rejecting their claim, preferred Civil Appeal No.172 of 1992.
An amendment has been sought on the ground that during the pendency of the appeal the respondents forcefully removed the appendage existing on the disputed land effect of which is that the petitioners were dispossessed. Accordingly, the amendment application was filed seeking to incorporate certain facts which had taken place after the decree has been passed.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the amendment which has sought by the petitioners does not change the nature of the suit. He contends that the subsequent developments which have taken place during the pendency of the appeal are necessary to be brought on record by amendment for proper and correct adjudication of the suit between the parties. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Appellate Court rejected the application mainly on the ground that a map prepared by the Commissioner is on record and if modification is applied in the map of the property in dispute shown in the plaint it could be done under Order 39 Rule 22 CPC and therefore, application is not misconceived.
The Court finds that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner wants to bring on record by amendment the subsequent developments which have taken place after the passing of decree. In the opinion of the Court the amendment which has been sought by the petitioner seeking the relief of possession and incorporation of certain material facts does not change the nature of the case.
In such view of the fact, this Court finds that the court below has erred in law in rejecting the amendment application accordingly, amendment application is allowed. The applicant is permitted to carry out the necessary amendment within a period of one months from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the order.
The appeal is of the year 1992, therefore, considering the fact that more than 30 years have passed since the filing of appeal, the Appellate Court should make endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
In case if any adjournment is inevitable, the authority concerned may grant the same by imposing heavy cost which may not be less than Rs.1,000/-.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 5.5.2022
Mohit
