Dharmendra vs Smt Shashi Rani And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 320 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dharmendra vs Smt Shashi Rani And 2 Others on 4 January, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:1357
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12738 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Dharmendra
 
Respondent :- Smt Shashi Rani And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohan Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for following relief:

"i. Issue necessary orders or directions to set aside the judgment and order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No. 2, Buland Shahr in Civil Revision No. 15 of 2023 (Dharmendra and another vs. Smt. Shashi Rani and another) (Annexure No. 1 to this petition)."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the defendant in the Original Suit No. 919 of 2006 (new no. 357 of 2021), Smt. Shashi Rani v. Dharmendra and others, for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 01.09.2006. The suit was being contested by the petitioner by filing written statement on 02.08.2007. On 06.10.2022, the petitioner filed an amendment application for amendment in the written statement. The aforesaid application was rejected by the trial court by order dated 03.11.2022. Against the order dated 03.11.2022, the petitioner filed review application which was also dismissed by order dated 18.01.2023. The petitioner then filed a civil revision No. 15 of 2023 challenging the order dated 03.11.2022 and the said revision has also been dismissed by the revisional court by order dated 05.10.2023.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner wanted to incorporate an legal plea which was left by inadvertence and there was no impediment in allowing the aforesaid amendment as no prejudice was likely to be caused to the plaintiff in the suit.

5. Perused the judgment passed by the court below and the application for amendment rejected on the ground that the said application was filed after a lapse of 16 years though the written statement itself filed by the petitioner in the year 2007 and in view of proviso 2 Rule 17 of Order 6, amendment cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that instead of due indulgence the party could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the order impugned which requires interference by this Court. However, so far as the submission of the petitioner that proposed amendment was relating of pure question of law is concerned, the said question can always be raised by the defendant even without there being any amendment in the written statement.

7. Consequently, the writ petition is, dismissed.

Order Date :- 4.1.2024

Ved Prakash

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.)