Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KRISHANDAS DEONATH versus SMT. MUNNI DEVI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Krishandas Deonath v. Smt. Munni Devi - WRIT - A No. - 57313 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18074 (20 November 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

In a pending application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short, the Act) in P.A. Suit No. 30/2003 Smt. Munni Devi vs. Krishnadas Deonath, the trial court rejected the application for amending the written statement on 22.9.2007 on the ground that the evidence has been closed and that the facts sought to be introduced by amendment in the plaint, have been stated in the evidence. The appeal under Section 23 of the Act was dismissed on 26.10.2007, as not maintainable.

The law, with regard to amendment of the pleadings, was amended by Act No. 22 of 2002, enforcing CPC (Amendment) Act of 1999, by adding a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. w.e.f. 1.7.2002, providing therein, that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that inspite of the due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

A perusal of the application for amendment would show that the petitioner-tenant has not given the dates on which the shops are alleged to be let out by the respondent-landlord without allotment and the dates on which the fresh constructions were made by the landlord including the shop vacated by another tenant with the residential house in his occupation. The petitioner has not denied that these facts have already come on record in the evidence led by the tenant.

I do not find any error in the order of the trial court rejecting the amendment application. The writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 20.11.2007

RKP WP-57313-2007


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.