SRI SURESH CHAND GUPTA versus ANUJ SINGHAL

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Sri Suresh Chand Gupta v. Anuj Singhal - WRIT - A No. 11647 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4521 (24 February 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner-tenant, aggrieved by an order passed by the appellate authority during the pendency of an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') wherein an application for amendment of written statement filed by the petitioner, Paper No.86-Ka, has been rejected, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The appellate authority while rejecting the aforesaid application has categorically stated that the material which the petitioner wants to produce at the appellate stage is already on record in the form of an application. In these circumstances it is held by the appellate court that there is no justification of allowing the amendment application and delay the disposal of the appeal as alleged by respondent-landlord.

Learned counsel for the petitioner expressed apprehension that unless written statement is amended, the affidavit filed in support of amendment application would not be read in evidence by the appellate authority. To me it appears that this apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is baseless. In view of provisions of Section 34 (1) (b) of the Act it is apparent that whatever is there in the form of affidavit that forms part of evidence while deciding the case under the Act. In view of this fact I do not find any error in the order passed by the appellate authority. However, the said affidavit may be considered by the appellate authority as evidence filed on behalf of the petitioner after giving opportunity to other side by filing evidence in rebuttal, if any.

With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed.

Dt: 24.2.2006

mhu - 11647/06

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 |

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