Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Saresho v. Siriya - CIVIL REVISION No. 459 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20254 (29 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Court No. 24

CIVIL REVISION NO. 459 of 2006

Smt. Saresho Vs. Siriya

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

This revision challenges the order dated 30.10.2006 whereby the petitioner's application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. in the pleadings of the plaint has been rejected by the lower appellate court.

By the proposed amendment the petitioner plaintiff has sought to incorporate five new paragraphs in the plaint to add certain facts whereby she wants to state that the disputed gali was the exclusive property of her mother and that one pedigree is also proposed to be added. Some fact regarding a compromise reached between the plaintiff and the third party is also sought to be added and thus to state that opposite party defendant did not have any access to the disputed gali. These facts were found by the court below to be wholly impermissible for addition in the pleadings of the plaint as certain admissions of the plaintiff in that regard had already appeared in her evidence recorded before the trial court, which are factually against the alleged facts proposed to be added. The addition of the fact of proposed paragraphs 6(n) was also found to be irrelevant to the case and accordingly, the prayer has been refused.

A perusal of the amendment application (Annexure-4) makes it evident that certain gali, which is in dispute between the parties, is allegedly claimed by the plaintiff as her exclusive property not accessible to the defendant. A pedigree of the family is also to be added by this proposed amendment. As regards the pedigree, it was definitely very much within the knowledge of the plaintiff when the suit was filed and addition of such pedigree at the stage of first appeal is such a belated amendment, which is definitely not permissible under the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The claim of the plaintiff over the gali in suit being her exclusive property is also not such, which can be added at this stage because certain admissions in regard thereto that the gali is in common user by the parties and some other persons, are already there on record in the evidence. The reference of certain compromise reached between the plaintiff and third party-Sarna has also been rightly not found as relevant for the purposes of just and proper decision in the suit. It is in this view of the matter that such application for incorporating amendment could not be accepted and it has been very justifiedly rejected by the court below.

I do not find any substance in the present revision, which fails and is hereby dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.