Allahabad High Court

2. Heard Shri M. A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ratnesh Chandra learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and Shri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in Civil Revision No.9 of 2025 whereby the revision was dismissed and the order passed by the trial court dated

13.01.2025 was affirmed, as a consequence, applications moved by the petitioner bearing Paper No.C-48 and C-286 were rejected fixing the matter for final hearing.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant case, it will be appropriate to take a view of the facts of the case.

5. The present petitioners who are the plaintiffs in Regular Suit No.117 of 2002 instituted a suit for permanent injunction and declaration. At a much later stage of trial, the plaintiffs moved an application for amendment on

14.12.2023 seeking to incorporate five paragraphs in the plaint and indicated by serial number of the paragraphs 32-A to 32 Dha. The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the application for amendment. The amendment was incorporated in the plaint and thereafter the plaintiffs 2 A227 No. 4501 of 2025 moved another application to bring documents on record.

6. It was the case that since certain paragraphs have been amended, accordingly in order to substantiate the same, evidence was required to be placed on record. The trial court on consideration of the said application rejected it by means of an order dated 18.04.2024. This order was again challenged by the plaintiffs petitioners by filing a civil revision bearing No.77 of 2024 which also came to be dismissed on 01.10.2024.

7. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved another application for placing the documents on record which as per the plaintiffs petitioners was to be filed as the amendment sought by the plaintiffs had been allowed. This application was again rejected by the trial court by means of an order dated 13.01.2025 which has been brought on record as annexure no.2. The said order was assailed by filing revision 9 of 2025 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 prompting the petitioners to approach this Court.

8. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on

05.01.2024 an application for amendment of the plaint was allowed and in the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiffs have the right to substantiate the amended plea which also required the plaintiffs to bring the necessary documents on record, including the plaintiffs to lead evidence and this opportunity has been deprived resulting in a sheer miscarriage of justice.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it would have been a different situation where the amendment may not have been allowed and in the absence of a necessary foundation in the pleadings the plaintiffs may have misadventured to bring the documents on record which could in that given circumstance be justified but it is not so hence, the observations of the trial court as well as the revisional court are bad.

10. It is submitted that the situation here was contrary to the aforesaid rather the amendment was allowed and once the pleadings were amended the plaintiffs was legally entitled to lead evidence in support of his pleadings and this right could not have been taken away. Thus, for the said reason the orders impugned passed by the two courts are bad in the eyes of law. 3 A227 No. 4501 of 2025

11. It is also submitted that even though the regular suit is of the year 2002 but nevertheless the plaintiffs can be given an opportunity within a certain time frame, which the petitioners are ready to adhere to so that in a time span the suit can be decided, accordingly in light of the aforesaid the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

12. Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for respondents-State have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions. It is urged that the petitioners have blatantly misused the indulgence granted by the Court coupled with the fact that on two earlier occasions, the High Court had directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously but all endeavours were made by the petitioners to delay the proceedings and it is for the said reason that the suit relating to the year 2002 is still pending.

13. It is urged that even though the writ petition was filed in the month of July 2025 and there was no interim order yet the petitioners have been successful in delaying the proceedings before the trial court.

14. It has also been urged that the order passed by the trial court is interlocutory in nature against which the civil revision was not maintainable. Even otherwise, once the revision has been dismissed now the said order cannot be assailed in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

15. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

16. Apparently, it is not disputed that on 05.01.2024 an application for amendment moved by the petitioner was allowed. The record indicates that the petitioners had moved an application bearing Paper No.C-302 dated 09.02.2024 whereby the petitioners had sought time to lead evidence in respect of documents, he wished to file in support of his amended pleading.

17. The record further indicates that the said application bearing Paper No.C-302/1 was rejected by the trial court on 18.04.2024 and against the 4 A227 No. 4501 of 2025 said order the petitioners have preferred a Civil Revision bearing No.77 of 2024 which was also dismissed on 01.10.2024.

18. The admitted position which is reflected from the record, is the fact that the petitioners did not challenge any further order passed in Civil Revision No.77 of 2024 dated 01.10.2024. This assumes significance for the reason that on 18.04.2024 the application bearing Paper No.C-302/1 was rejected which was affirmed in revision vide order dated 01.10.2024.

19. The pith and substance of the application C-302/1 was to permit the plaintiffs to lead evidence in support of their amended pleas which related to both, the documentary evidence and oral evidence. This can very well be seen from the perusal of the said application No.C-302/1 which has been brought on record by the petitioners by filing a supplementary- affidavit dated 25.08.2025 (whereby the application has been annexed as annexure no.S.A.2 at running page 74 of the said affidavit).

20. Once the said application had been rejected which was affirmed in a revision and without any further challenge to the same, position emerging is that both oral and documentary evidence was refused to be taken on record. Now in face of the said order, it is not open for the plaintiffs to indirectly challenge the said order dated 18.04.2024 and 01.10.2024 by taking recourse to subterfuge under which the fresh application has been moved which has been brought on record as annexure no.3 with the writ petition. By means of the said application dated 14.12.2023, the petitioners wish to bring on record certain documents that were taken by the petitioners under Right to Information Act. It is in the aforesaid context, it would be relevant to see that what cannot be done indirectly.

21. The record would further reflect that after the amendment was allowed on 05.01.2024, the petitioners had filed the earlier application Paper No.302/1 where he had sought the leave to submit the documentary evidence and had asked for two days time.

22. The record further indicates that the said application No.302/1 filed on

09.02.2024 came to be rejected on 18.04.2024 and within this period, the petitioners did not file or bring on record the evidence as sought. There can be no justification for the petitioners to state that he had filed the 5 A227 No. 4501 of 2025 application and had the said application dated 09.02.2024 been allowed only then he would have brought the same on record.

23. First and foremost, this submission is misconceived, if the petitioners wanted, he could have filed the said documents on record and only thereafter he could have led evidence if leave was granted. Moreso had the documents been on record, it could have helped the trial court to assess the relevance and admissibility of the said documents while considering the earlier application However, what the plaintiffs have done is that they moved an application and contested the dismissal of the said application upto the District Judge unsuccessfully and only at a later stage, indirectly the same evidence which had been refused sought to be introduced by moving a fresh application which had been rejected both by the trial court as well as the revisional court.

24. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the clear view that the order impugned dated 13.01.2025 passed by the trial court and 06.05.2025 passed by the District Judge, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor does the said order if allowed to stand may cause irreparable injury. This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of this Court in Suresh Chandra Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 SCC OnLine All 10844 hence this Court finds that the petition is sans merit and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. September 23, 2025 Jaspreet Singh,J.)

2. Heard Shri M. A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ratnesh Chandra learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and Shri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in Civil Revision No.9 of 2025 whereby the revision was dismissed and the order passed by the trial court dated

13.01.2025 was affirmed, as a consequence, applications moved by the petitioner bearing Paper No.C-48 and C-286 were rejected fixing the matter for final hearing.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant case, it will be appropriate to take a view of the facts of the case.

5. The present petitioners who are the plaintiffs in Regular Suit No.117 of 2002 instituted a suit for permanent injunction and declaration. At a much later stage of trial, the plaintiffs moved an application for amendment on

14.12.2023 seeking to incorporate five paragraphs in the plaint and indicated by serial number of the paragraphs 32-A to 32 Dha. The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the application for amendment. The amendment was incorporated in the plaint and thereafter the plaintiffs 2 A227 No. 4501 of 2025 moved another application to bring documents on record.

6. It was the case that since certain paragraphs have been amended, accordingly in order to substantiate the same, evidence was required to be placed on record. The trial court on consideration of the said application rejected it by means of an order dated 18.04.2024. This order was again challenged by the plaintiffs petitioners by filing a civil revision bearing No.77 of 2024 which also came to be dismissed on 01.10.2024.

7. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved another application for placing the documents on record which as per the plaintiffs petitioners was to be filed as the amendment sought by the plaintiffs had been allowed. This application was again rejected by the trial court by means of an order dated 13.01.2025 which has been brought on record as annexure no.2. The said order was assailed by filing revision 9 of 2025 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 prompting the petitioners to approach this Court.

8. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on

05.01.2024 an application for amendment of the plaint was allowed and in the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiffs have the right to substantiate the amended plea which also required the plaintiffs to bring the necessary documents on record, including the plaintiffs to lead evidence and this opportunity has been deprived resulting in a sheer miscarriage of justice.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it would have been a different situation where the amendment may not have been allowed and in the absence of a necessary foundation in the pleadings the plaintiffs may have misadventured to bring the documents on record which could in that given circumstance be justified but it is not so hence, the observations of the trial court as well as the revisional court are bad.

10. It is submitted that the situation here was contrary to the aforesaid rather the amendment was allowed and once the pleadings were amended the plaintiffs was legally entitled to lead evidence in support of his pleadings and this right could not have been taken away. Thus, for the said reason the orders impugned passed by the two courts are bad in the eyes of law. 3 A227 No. 4501 of 2025

11. It is also submitted that even though the regular suit is of the year 2002 but nevertheless the plaintiffs can be given an opportunity within a certain time frame, which the petitioners are ready to adhere to so that in a time span the suit can be decided, accordingly in light of the aforesaid the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

12. Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for respondents-State have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions. It is urged that the petitioners have blatantly misused the indulgence granted by the Court coupled with the fact that on two earlier occasions, the High Court had directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously but all endeavours were made by the petitioners to delay the proceedings and it is for the said reason that the suit relating to the year 2002 is still pending.

13. It is urged that even though the writ petition was filed in the month of July 2025 and there was no interim order yet the petitioners have been successful in delaying the proceedings before the trial court.

14. It has also been urged that the order passed by the trial court is interlocutory in nature against which the civil revision was not maintainable. Even otherwise, once the revision has been dismissed now the said order cannot be assailed in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

15. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

16. Apparently, it is not disputed that on 05.01.2024 an application for amendment moved by the petitioner was allowed. The record indicates that the petitioners had moved an application bearing Paper No.C-302 dated 09.02.2024 whereby the petitioners had sought time to lead evidence in respect of documents, he wished to file in support of his amended pleading.

17. The record further indicates that the said application bearing Paper No.C-302/1 was rejected by the trial court on 18.04.2024 and against the 4 A227 No. 4501 of 2025 said order the petitioners have preferred a Civil Revision bearing No.77 of 2024 which was also dismissed on 01.10.2024.

18. The admitted position which is reflected from the record, is the fact that the petitioners did not challenge any further order passed in Civil Revision No.77 of 2024 dated 01.10.2024. This assumes significance for the reason that on 18.04.2024 the application bearing Paper No.C-302/1 was rejected which was affirmed in revision vide order dated 01.10.2024.

19. The pith and substance of the application C-302/1 was to permit the plaintiffs to lead evidence in support of their amended pleas which related to both, the documentary evidence and oral evidence. This can very well be seen from the perusal of the said application No.C-302/1 which has been brought on record by the petitioners by filing a supplementary- affidavit dated 25.08.2025 (whereby the application has been annexed as annexure no.S.A.2 at running page 74 of the said affidavit).

20. Once the said application had been rejected which was affirmed in a revision and without any further challenge to the same, position emerging is that both oral and documentary evidence was refused to be taken on record. Now in face of the said order, it is not open for the plaintiffs to indirectly challenge the said order dated 18.04.2024 and 01.10.2024 by taking recourse to subterfuge under which the fresh application has been moved which has been brought on record as annexure no.3 with the writ petition. By means of the said application dated 14.12.2023, the petitioners wish to bring on record certain documents that were taken by the petitioners under Right to Information Act. It is in the aforesaid context, it would be relevant to see that what cannot be done indirectly.

21. The record would further reflect that after the amendment was allowed on 05.01.2024, the petitioners had filed the earlier application Paper No.302/1 where he had sought the leave to submit the documentary evidence and had asked for two days time.

22. The record further indicates that the said application No.302/1 filed on

09.02.2024 came to be rejected on 18.04.2024 and within this period, the petitioners did not file or bring on record the evidence as sought. There can be no justification for the petitioners to state that he had filed the 5 A227 No. 4501 of 2025 application and had the said application dated 09.02.2024 been allowed only then he would have brought the same on record.

23. First and foremost, this submission is misconceived, if the petitioners wanted, he could have filed the said documents on record and only thereafter he could have led evidence if leave was granted. Moreso had the documents been on record, it could have helped the trial court to assess the relevance and admissibility of the said documents while considering the earlier application However, what the plaintiffs have done is that they moved an application and contested the dismissal of the said application upto the District Judge unsuccessfully and only at a later stage, indirectly the same evidence which had been refused sought to be introduced by moving a fresh application which had been rejected both by the trial court as well as the revisional court.

24. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the clear view that the order impugned dated 13.01.2025 passed by the trial court and 06.05.2025 passed by the District Judge, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor does the said order if allowed to stand may cause irreparable injury. This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of this Court in Suresh Chandra Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others 2015 SCC OnLine All 10844 hence this Court finds that the petition is sans merit and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. September 23, 2025 Jaspreet Singh,J.)