WPMS/3169/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 3983 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS No. 3169 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Petitioner is defendant in a suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by respondent no. 1 in the year 2016. Petitioners filed their written statement in the month of January, 2017. In the month of August, 2018, petitioner sought leave to amend the written statement for incorporating the objection regarding maintainability of the suit with reference to Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and also Sections 5 (2)

(a) & 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

Petitioner's amendment application was rejected by learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.10.2018 by holding that conduct of petitioner shows lack of diligence, therefore, leave to amend cannot be granted after commencement of trial.

Petitioner challenged trial Court's order by filing a revision, which was dismissed by learned III Additional District Judge, Haridwar, vide judgment dated 09.05.2022. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court, challenging the order passed by learned Trial Court as affirmed by learned Revisional Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned Revisional Court has given valid reasons for dismissing the revision. Revisional Court relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and another, reported in AIR 2005 SC 4446, in which, it was held that an order passed by a Court having no jurisdiction is a nullity and invalidity of such an order could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon.

Learned Revisional Court has further held that the issue of lack of jurisdiction can be raised by petitioner during the course of argument, which shall be considered and decided by the Trial Court.

Since by the amendment, petitioner had sought to add the plea regarding statutory bar created by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 5 (2) (a) & 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, which are purely legal, therefore, the reasoning given by learned Revisional Court that these issues can be raised by petitioner during the course of argument, cannot be faulted.

Even otherwise also, scope of supervisory jurisdiction is limited and every error committed by subordinate Courts cannot be corrected under Article 227 of the Constitution. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent view taken by both the learned Courts below.

The writ petition, thus fails, and is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 12.12.2022 Navin