High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Gajodhar & Others v. Ram Das & Others - WRIT - C No. 66125 of 2005  RD-AH 4310 (18 October 2005)
Court No. 4
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66125 Of 2005.
Gajodhar and others
Ram Das and others
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners, aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional court filed by the respondents against the order of the trial court rejecting amendment application filed by the respondents, approach this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The brief facts are that the petitioners filed an application in a suit which was filed in the year 1998 seeking amendment of the pleadings. This amendment application is dismissed by the trial court by order dated 26th April 2005 on the ground that in view of amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 since the case is at the stage of evidence proviso to the aforesaid Order VI Rule 17 has full application and no amendment can be permitted. With the aforesaid finding the trial court rejected the amendment application filed by the respondents. Aggrieved thereby the respondents filed a revision before the revisional court. The revisional court has taken the view, in my opinion, rightly that since the suit is of the year 1998 the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 has no application in view of Section 16(2)(b) of the Amending Act 2002, which reads as under:-
"(b) the provisions of rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 of Order VI of the First Schedule as omitted or, as the case may be, inserted or substituted by section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and by section 7 of this Act shall not apply to in respect of any pleading filed before the commencement of section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and section 7 of this Act."
In the transitory provision the view taken by the trial court has rightly been upset by the revisional court. Thus this argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel then argued that the revisional court has arrived at a finding regarding unusual delay in filing the amendment application which is not supported by any material on the record. This view is not correct. I have gone through the order passed by the revisional court. The revisional court has discussed every point. In the circumstances the amendment cannot be said to be mala fide. This order passed by the trial court was set aside by the order dated 16th September 2005.
In view of the above discussion I do not find any error much less an error of law is committed by the revisional court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition has, therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.