Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5068 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sabrul Hasan Respondent :- Dubar And 30 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hausihla Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri H.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners.
Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the array of parties.
Defendants-petitioners are before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 15.5.2018 passed by District Judge, Mahrajganj.
Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners states that the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit being Suit No. 1223 of 1983 (Mahavir(deceased) and others Vs. Sakir Ali (deceased) and others) for permanent injunction and the same was decreed against the defendants- petitioners vide order dated 10.1.2001. The said order has been assailed by the defendants- petitioner in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2001.
Consequently, W.S. has been filed. During pendency of the appeal in the year 2004, the defendants- petitioners filed an application 46ka2 for amendment in para of the W.S. in aforesaid appeal, whereby they wanted to incorporate certain facts. On the said amendment application, the plaintiffs- respondents filed objection 60-ga taking ground that the said application is barred by limitation and further since the matter is at the stage of final disposal, such type of amendment cannot be allowed. The learned District Judge, Mahrajganj without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the amendment application vide order dated 15.5.2018. Hence, this writ petition.
The Court is suprised that the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has been preferred in the year 2004 and admittedly the appeal in question is pending since 2001 and as such by the order impugned, the same has been rejected.
In the facts and circumstances, the Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned and has declined to interfere in the order impugned.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, in the interest of justice, the court concerned is expected to decide the appeal in question which is pending since 2001, in accordance with law at the earliest, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 A.K.Srivastava