Aditya Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And

1. Heard Shri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Ms. Niharika Sahai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Puneet Chandra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) South, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.365 of 1998 whereby an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner seeking deletion of a prayer seeking issuance of a decree for specific performance of a contract and some incidental pleadings were sought to be deleted.

3. The application was rejected by means of an order dated 06.02.2025 stating that the petitioner had submitted the suit for specific performance of a contract on 09.02.1999. The case was at the stage of final submissions. At this stage, by making an amendment deleting the prayer for issuance of a decree for specific performance of a contract would alter the nature of suit as the suit will be converted from a suit of specific performance of a contract to a suit for perpetual injunction which would affect the interest of the parties.

4. A Civil Revision No.53 of 2025 filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow wherein the revisional Court has held that Order 6 rule 17 CPC prohibits amendment in pleading after commencement of trial.

5. The District Judge has also held that the suit is one of the oldest suit pending in the Court and it is at the stage of final submissions. The amendment application filed at this stage does not appear to be bonafide. The trial Court has rightly observed that the amendment will change the nature of suit and there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 2 A227 No. 6071 of 2025

6. Section 115 C.P.C., as it applies to the State of U.P., provides as follows:- "115. Revision.—(1) A superior court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order and where the subordinate court has— (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificate on the first page of such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district court but lies only to the High Court either because of valuation or because the order sought to be revised was passed by the district court. (3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where,— (i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. (4) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the superior court. Explanation I.—In this section,— (i) the expression 'superior court' means— (a) the district court, where the valuation of a case decided by a court subordinate to it does not exceed 247[twenty-five lakh rupees]; (b) the High Court, where the order sought to be revised was passed in a case decided by the district court or where the value of the original suit or other proceedings in a case decided by a court subordinate to the district court exceed five lakh rupees; (ii) the expression 'order' includes an order deciding an issue in any original suit or other proceedings. Explanation II.—The provisions of this section shall also be applicable to orders passed, before or after the commencement of this section, in original commencement." suits or other proceedings instituted before

7. The petitioner has filed a suit in the year 1998 claiming a decree for specific performance of contract as also a decree for perpetual injunction. The petitioner has stated in the application for amendment filed on 13.01.2025 that there is no written contract between the parties, which fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioner till he engaged a new counsel.

8. The contract was the basis of the suit for specific performance of a contract and the plea taken by the petitioner that he had no knowledge that there was no written contract between the parties at the time of filing of the suit in the year 1998 and till filing the application for amendment in the year 2025, cannot be accepted. Moreover, 3 A227 No. 6071 of 2025 the application has been filed because the petitioner does not want to press the prayer for issuance of a decree for specific performance of a contract. The rejection of the application for amendment seeking deletion of the aforesaid relief would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner or failure of justice as it is always open to the petitioner to not press a prayer even during submissions.

9. In absence of any failure of justice having been caused to the petitioner neither there was any ground of revision available to the revisional court to interfere with the order passed by the trial court nor has this court any reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court and the revisional court when the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice or failure of justice from the impugned orders.

10. Accordingly, the petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. October 14, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

1. Heard Shri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and Ms. Niharika Sahai, Advocate holding brief of Shri Puneet Chandra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) South, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.365 of 1998 whereby an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner seeking deletion of a prayer seeking issuance of a decree for specific performance of a contract and some incidental pleadings were sought to be deleted.

3. The application was rejected by means of an order dated 06.02.2025 stating that the petitioner had submitted the suit for specific performance of a contract on 09.02.1999. The case was at the stage of final submissions. At this stage, by making an amendment deleting the prayer for issuance of a decree for specific performance of a contract would alter the nature of suit as the suit will be converted from a suit of specific performance of a contract to a suit for perpetual injunction which would affect the interest of the parties.

4. A Civil Revision No.53 of 2025 filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow wherein the revisional Court has held that Order 6 rule 17 CPC prohibits amendment in pleading after commencement of trial.

5. The District Judge has also held that the suit is one of the oldest suit pending in the Court and it is at the stage of final submissions. The amendment application filed at this stage does not appear to be bonafide. The trial Court has rightly observed that the amendment will change the nature of suit and there is no error or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 2 A227 No. 6071 of 2025

6. Section 115 C.P.C., as it applies to the State of U.P., provides as follows:- "115. Revision.—(1) A superior court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order and where the subordinate court has— (a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) A revision application under sub-section (1), when filed in the High Court, shall contain a certificate on the first page of such application, below the title of the case, to the effect that no revision in the case lies to the district court but lies only to the High Court either because of valuation or because the order sought to be revised was passed by the district court. (3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where,— (i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made. (4) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the superior court. Explanation I.—In this section,— (i) the expression 'superior court' means— (a) the district court, where the valuation of a case decided by a court subordinate to it does not exceed 247[twenty-five lakh rupees]; (b) the High Court, where the order sought to be revised was passed in a case decided by the district court or where the value of the original suit or other proceedings in a case decided by a court subordinate to the district court exceed five lakh rupees; (ii) the expression 'order' includes an order deciding an issue in any original suit or other proceedings. Explanation II.—The provisions of this section shall also be applicable to orders passed, before or after the commencement of this section, in original commencement." suits or other proceedings instituted before

7. The petitioner has filed a suit in the year 1998 claiming a decree for specific performance of contract as also a decree for perpetual injunction. The petitioner has stated in the application for amendment filed on 13.01.2025 that there is no written contract between the parties, which fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioner till he engaged a new counsel.

8. The contract was the basis of the suit for specific performance of a contract and the plea taken by the petitioner that he had no knowledge that there was no written contract between the parties at the time of filing of the suit in the year 1998 and till filing the application for amendment in the year 2025, cannot be accepted. Moreover, 3 A227 No. 6071 of 2025 the application has been filed because the petitioner does not want to press the prayer for issuance of a decree for specific performance of a contract. The rejection of the application for amendment seeking deletion of the aforesaid relief would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner or failure of justice as it is always open to the petitioner to not press a prayer even during submissions.

9. In absence of any failure of justice having been caused to the petitioner neither there was any ground of revision available to the revisional court to interfere with the order passed by the trial court nor has this court any reason to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court and the revisional court when the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice or failure of justice from the impugned orders.

10. Accordingly, the petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. October 14, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)