Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4685 of 2019 Petitioner :- Harsh Rastogi And 3 Others Respondent :- Shri Devi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.2.2019 passed by the District Judge, Farrukhabad in Civil Revision No. 14/2017, Harsh Rastogi Vs. Shri Devi and another as well as impugned order dated 6.1.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kayamganj, district Farrukhabad in Original Suit No. 402/1998, Harsh Rastogi Vs. Shri Devi and another filed as Annexures 2 and 4 to the petition.
By the impugned order dated 6.1.2017 the application filed by the plaintiff petitioners herein under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint was rejected. The revision filed against the same was also rejected by the revisional court. The amendment was rejected on the ground that the amendments that are being sought have already been allowed on the earlier occasion and the application has been filed to delay the proceedings.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the amendment that is being sought does not affect the nature of the case and the reasonings given by the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law.
I have heard the submissions and have perused the record.
Suit is of the year 1998. Initially the suit was dismissed by the trial court. His appeal filed in the year 2007 was allowed in the year 2015 and the matter was remanded back to the trial court. It is thereafter the amendment application was filed in the year 2016. Both the courts below have recorded a finding that the amendment that is being sought has already been allowed on the earlier occasion and the plaintiff - petitioners were aware of such factual developments that are being asserted right from the beginning and therefore, the amendment at this stage cannot be allowed.
I do not find any legal infirmity in the orders impugned herein. This petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is of the year 1998 and the same may be directed to be decided expeditiously.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the court below shall decide the suit itself, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year provided there is no other legal impediment by giving short dates and no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted.
No costs.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019/p.s.