BRIJKISHOR NEEKHARA ADVOCATE Vs. HARI PRAKASH
LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-24
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 23,2017

Brijkishor Neekhara Advocate Appellant
VERSUS
HARI PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "(1). Set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.8.2017 passed by respected Upper District Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Jhansi, District Jhansi in S.C.C. Revision No. 21 of 2017 Brijkishore Neekhara v. Hari Prakash and order dated 3.3.2017 passed by learned the Judge of Small Causes Court Jhansi in S.C.C. Suit No. 70 of 2013 Smt. Laxmi and others v. Brijkishore Neekhara, Jhansi District Jhansi and further be pleased to allow the Amendment application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure No. 10, 6 and 4 respectively to the Misc. Petition). (2). issue an order or direction in the nature of Justice this Hon'ble Court directing the Small Cause Court, Jhansi not to proceed the S.C.C. Suit No. 70/2013 Smt. Laxmi and others v. Brijkishore Neeekhara pending in the court of Small Cause Court, Jhansi. (3). issue a further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (4). Award the costs to the Misc. petition of petitioner."
(3.) By the impugned order dated 3.3.2017 the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected on the ground that the evidence has been concluded and the case is fixed for final hearing and it appears that the application has been filed for delaying the matter. The aforesaid order of the trial court was affirmed in S.C.C. revision filed by the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that specific averments have been made in the written statement but the relevant allotment order dated 22.10.1964 specifying the premises in possession of the tenant petitioner could not be placed on record, which is necessary for deciding real controversy between the parties and that a liberal approach in allowing amendment in written statement should be adopted and that delay is no ground for refusal of prayer for amendment of written statement. Hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and amendment should be permitted.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.