Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8139 of 2017 Petitioner :- Shambhu Nath Respondent :- Dayal Shankar Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Iii Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,K.B. Dixit,Manish Chandra Tiwari
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Essentially the petitioner is aggrieved by the inclusion of the fact in the written statement that a portion of the property was also in the ownership of one Amar Nath. Learned counsel for the petitioner further has stated that after the framing of the issues i.e. after the commencement of the suit, no amendment could have been brought.
A perusal of the order shows that the amendment application has been allowed without considering the fact as to whether the amendment could be allowed after the commencement of the hearing of the suit.
Under such circumstances, even though no interference is being made with the order, it is being provided that the plaintiff, if he prays for the framing of further issues with regard to the will on the basis of which Amar Nath was claiming ownership, then he may be allowed to do so by the Court below. After the framing of the issue, the suit would be decided on a day to day basis. It is made clear that adjournment may be granted only under very pressing circumstances and that too after the imposition of heavy costs.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 GS (Siddhartha Varma, J.)