Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Anand Bala" Of The Suit on 8 March, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
08.03.2021 CLR No.36 of 2020
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, for the
revisionists.
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Kaushal Pandey, Advocate, for the
respondent.
The revisionists in the present revision are
the defendants in O.S. No.67 of 2012 "Tilak Singh
Vs. Anand Bala" of the suit, which was instituted
by the plaintiffs/respondent. In the suit, they have
sought a decree of prohibitory injunction, as well as
for the perpetual injunction, in relation to the
property which was described in the plaint by way
of Schedule A and Schedule B. The suit itself,
which was instituted on 16.03.2012, proceeded and
on the exchange of the pleadings, the issues are said
to have been framed on 22.07.2015.
The plaintiff/respondent, herein, in the
present revision is alleged to have filed an
amendment application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of
the CPC proposing to amend the reliefs clause of
the suit as well as the pleadings itself by moving the
same before the court below on 26.07.2019.
The apprehension which has been expressed
by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the
said amendment application, which was considered
by the learned court of 2nd Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division) had allowed the amendment
application and had rather permitted the plaintiff to
carry out the amendment in the plaint, which is
exclusively by way of incorporating of certain
reliefs and pleadings, which according to the
contents and grounds of the revision were time
barred reliefs and which could not have been
incorporated by virtue of an amendment and that
too after framing of the issues on 22.07.2015. The
apprehension has been expressed by the revisionist
that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court rendered in the case of Sampath Kumar
(Supra), which had postulated that the amendments
once allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC,
will relegate back to have been in existence in the
pleadings as on the date of the institution of the suit
itself.
The apprehension expressed by the
revisionist, is that allowing of an amendment at any
stage though is not completely barred, and
particularly, as far as the said applicability the said
principles are related to the State of Uttarakhand,
where the scope of revision as against the orders
passed by the court had been widened, to be
interfered under Section 115 of CPC.
But limiting that controversy and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter,
the amendment which has been allowed by the
order of 22.11.2019 is sustained to be carried in the
plaint, subject to the rider that it will be left open
for the defendant/revisionists, to raise all his
objections, including the objections pertaining to
the incorporation of the time barred relief, by way
of an amendment and also whether the clarification
that the amendment made on 22.11.2019, would be
treated to be in existence on the date of allowing of
the application or not, from its institution. Rest of
the pleas are directed and left open to be argued in
the light of the provisions contained under Section
105 of CPC.
In view thereof, the civil revision stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
08.03.2021
NR/
