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


Suresh Chand And Others v. Laxmi Narain And Others - WRIT - C No. 24859 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9081 (5 May 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).


Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24859 of 2006

Suresh Chand and others Vs. Laxmi Narain and others

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners challenge the revisional court's order dated 01.03.2006 whereby the order of the trial court permitting amendment sought by the petitioners-plaintiffs in the plaint, has been set aside.

The petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction against their land lord-respondent. In the pleadings the rate of rent as given by the petitioner No. 3 for his accommodation is @ Rs. 500/- per month. By moving the proposed amendment application under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C., the petitioner No. 3 seeks to reduce the rate of rent from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 400/- per month. The trial court, though, allowed his prayer but the revisional court has interfered into it on the ground that when a particular tenant in his pleadings has made admission of the rate of rent, he cannot be permitted to reduce the rate as to detriment of the landlord. The amendment will definitely take away the vested right, which has accrued in favour of the land lord and the same cannot be withdrawn by permitting such amendment. It is on this ground that the order of the trial court has been set aside by the revisional court by the impugned order.

Learned counsel contends that this is by way of inadvertent rather clerical mistake and in all fairness its correction should be allowed by permitting the proposed amendment of the same.

I do not agree with the learned counsel. Since the vested right has been created in favour of the respondents-defendants, the court is not supposed to permit withdrawal of the same and this is a settled view of law of this court as well as the apex court. The citation of law given by the learned counsel in the cases of  Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and another, AIR 1983 (S.C.) 462 and Prem Bakshi and others Vs. Dharam Dev and others,  2002 (1) AWC 484 (S.C.) are helpful to the petitioners only to the extent if some admission is there by mistake appearing in the pleadings, the party so committing mistake has right to explain the same. Here also as the petitioners-plaintiffs' allege the rate of rent given in the pleadings is just an inadvertent and clerical mistake, they do have right to explain it as and when they enter in the evidence before the trial court. The leading of such evidence explaining the mistake shall not be objected to either by the other party or by the court. It would be for the court to find out as to how for the petitioners succeed in their explanation.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is hereby disposed of.




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.