High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Umesh Chand v. Muralidhar - WRIT - A No. 12646 of 2006  RD-AH 4919 (1 March 2006)
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
An application 46-Ka was filed seeking amendment in the written statement and for counter claim for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,000/- which, as per allegation made in the application, was paid by the defendant-tenant to the landlord as Pagri while inducting the petitioner as a tenant. This application has been rejected by the trial court by order impugned in the preset writ petition. The trial court has found that in view of amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure the petitioner has not explained as to why the application for amendment has been filed with delay. In these circumstances the application does not deserve to be allowed and thus rejected. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision. The revisional court maintained the order passed by the trial court vide its order dated 13th September 2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that in any way the order impugned in the present writ petition suffers from any error much less an error of law so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
mhu - 12646/06
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.