High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shyam Kishor And Another v. Additional District Judge And Another - WRIT - C No. 20821 of 2006  RD-AH 7879 (18 April 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 20821 of 2006
Shyam Kishor and another Vs. Additional District Judge,Etawah and another.
Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very out set has submitted that he is pressing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the observations made in order dated 21.10.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Etawah-respondent no.1 in Civil Revision No.31 of 2005 after setting aside its order dated 30.3.2005 remanding the case to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Etawah for passing fresh order on the amendment application in the light of the observation made therein. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-plaintiffs filed a civil suit No. 252 of 2003 on 23.7.2003 before the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Etawah, against respondent no.2 seeking permanent injunction.
Respondent no.2-defendant filed his written statement in the aforesaid matter. After hearing both the parties, the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Etawah, granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners vide order-dated 17.11.2003. An appeal was preferred by the respondent no.2 against the said order dated 17.11.2003 before the District Judge, which too was dismissed.
It is alleged that respondent no.2 thereafter filed an amendment application to the written statement before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Etawah, with the purpose of circumventing the findings recorded by the learned District Judge in the appeal as well as Civil Judge. The petitioners filed objections against the said amendment application. After hearing both the parties, the Civil Judge rejected the amendment application. Again a civil revision was preferred before the Court of Additional District Judge-respondent no.1, who allowed the same vide its order dated 21.10.2005
I have looked into the record of the case and find that no valid ground has been raised by the petitioners in support of its case. The writ petition has been filed on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is expected that the trial court shall pass an order on the amendment application strictly in accordance with law. The apprehension raised by the petitioners is uncalled for. The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. I do not find it to be a fit case for exercising my extraordinary/discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.