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


Pravendra Kumar v. Parveen Singh - WRIT - C No. - 53739 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17229 (31 October 2007)

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. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioner is the defendant in Original Suit No.284 of 2003 that was filed for specific performance of the contract dated 9th May, 2001. The suit was decreed by means of the judgment and decree dated 4th September, 2006. The Civil Appeal No.85 of 2006 is pending disposal. In the said Appeal an application was moved by the appellant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the written statement. This application was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Bijnor by the order dated 27th July, 2007. The present petition has been filed for quashing the said order and for allowing the Amendment Application.

The amendment that had been sought was for addition of paragraph nos. 13-A and 13-B in the written statement. In paragraph no.13-A, the defendant wanted to add that certain trees were standing on the disputed land and the valuation of the trees was also indicated. In paragraph no.13-B, it was sought to be added the the cost of the land in the year 2001 was not less than Rs.3,00,000/- per Bigha. It was, therefore, sought to be asserted that the agreement to sell the disputed property could not have been entered for a consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-.

The Court below has reiterated that no reason had been indicated by the defendant as to why these averments were not stated in the written statement that had been filed since these averments were of such a nature which were in the knowledge of the defendant.

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as has been amended w.e.f. 1st July, 2002 clearly provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of the due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

In such circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 31.10.2007



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.