Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

J.J. JEWELERS AND OTHERS versus AFAQ AHMAD SIDDIQUI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


J.J. Jewelers And Others v. Afaq Ahmad Siddiqui - WRIT - A No. 17641 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6850 (29 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 28.

CIVIL MISC.WRIT PETITON NO. 17641 OF  2006

J.J. Jewelers through Jamal Ahmad Siddiqui & ors.

vs

Afaq Ahmad Siddiqui.

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

On the request made by the  learned counsel for the petitioners that matter is extremely urgent  so the record of the writ petition was called for.

Heard Sri R.S. Maurya learned counsel for the petitioners.

By means of this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3.3.2006 passed by Prescribed Authority rejecting the amendment application as well as order dated 25.3.2006 dismissing the revision filed by them.

The facts are that the petitioners are tenants of shop situate in house No. S-3/259, Ardali Bazar, Varanasi. The respondent/ landlord filed a SCC suit No. 89 of 97 for arrear of rent and ejectment of the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings an amendment application dated 27.2.2006 was moved on behalf of the petitioners seeking amendment of their written statement. By means of the amendment application the petitioners sought to add facts in the written statement that the alleged sale deed in favour of the respondent / landlord dated 3.3.1994 was executed without any consideration and as such is void and there is no agreement of landlord and tenant between them and that disputed shop has been constructed by the tenant from his own resources and till such time cost of construction be refunded and they are entitled to retain the possession.

The prescribed Authority vide order dated 3.3.2006 dismissed the amendment application. The rivisional court vide order dated 25.3.2006 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners as not maintainable.

The prescribed Authority while rejecting the amendment application has recorded a finding that fact sought to be incorporated through the amendment have already been pleaded in the written statement and are mostly in the nature of argument and that amendment application has been moved after 8 years only to delay the proceedings. The said findings have been confirmed  by  the rivisional court.

A perusal of the written statement filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition goes to show that the facts sought  to be brought on record by amendment application have already been pleaded in the written statement.

In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below rejecting the amendment application and the writ petition   accordingly fails and is dismissed.

29.3.2006

g


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.