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


Shri Dwarika Prasad v. Shri Arvind Kumar Chaturvedi - WRIT - A No. 13502 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5314 (6 March 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).


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner-tenant, defendant in a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent, filed a written statement and contested the suit and when the suit was at the stage of final hearing he filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement. The said amendment is sought on the ground that there is mistake which is required to be corrected without explaining as to why this mistake has occurred and what is the explanation for delay and further why it was not taken at the time when the written statement was filed. The trial court rejected the said amendment application on the ground apart from others that even after the amendment sought for by the petitioner is allowed, the case of the petitioner will not change and dismissed the application for amendment vide order dated 22nd October 2005. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional court and the revisional court maintained the order passed by the trial court. Thus, this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure which has been brought in the statute book by way of amendment had tried to argue that in spite of due diligence on the part of the petitioner-tenant this point could not be raised before commencement of trial and the trial court and revisional court have committed error in rejecting the same. It is a fit case in which amendment should be allowed.

On both the grounds the revisional court rejected the amendment application and maintained the order of the trial court.

I do not find any error either as pointed by the petitioner or otherwise which may warrant any 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.

Dt: 6.3.2006

mhu - 13502/06


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 |

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