CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 7104 of 2013 · Patna High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- CHAKRADHARI
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 6 r. 17
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kumar Mr. D. K. Verma For the Respondent : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 14-08-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 18.02.2009 passed by learned Fast Track Court No. III, Siwan in T. A. No. 49/2001 whereby a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint at the stage of appeal has been rejected. Patna High Court CWJC No.7104 of 2013 (3) dt.14-08-2013 I have perused the impugned order. As per the plaintiff’s case in the plaint, one Lakhan Gond had died issueless. He had challenged the sale deed executed by one Ram Briksha Gond claiming to be grand son of said Lakhan Gond. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the plaintiff/ petitioner did not have knowledge about the correct address of Ram Briksha Gond, though he was impleaded as a party but with wrong address, as per address given in the sale deed. I do not find any relevance of such amendment at this stage. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order requiring interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) BKS/-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.