Baba Guru Saran Das Buddhisagar Mishra Shikshan Sansthan Thru.Manager,Pankaj Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Distt. Shrawasti And Another

Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.2.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the District Judge Shrawasti in Civil Revision No.1 of 2024 which has been dismissed, as a consequence, the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the trial court allowing an application for amendment filed on behalf of defendants has been affirmed.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shrawasti seeking remedy against the defendants not to interfere in the ownership and possession or creating any sort of interference in the College and its management being run by the plaintiff.

4. The said suit came to be contested by the defendants who had filed the written statement. However, at a later stage, after issues were framed, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the defendant no.2 seeking to incorporate two pleas in their written statement relating to absence of notice under Section 2 A227 No. 6379 of 2025 80 CPC as well as absence of notice under Section 106 of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947).

5. Initially, the said application was allowed by means of order dated

20.07.2018 which was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision bearing No.11 of 2018 which came to be allowed vide order dated

12.01.2021 and the matter was remitted to the trial court for deciding the application for amendment afresh. It is thereafter that the trial court after hearing the parties by means of order dated 28.11.2023 allowed the amendment which has also been affirmed in the revision which has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by means of this petition.

6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for amendment was filed by the State Authorities after about four years apart from the fact that the issues had already been framed. There was no worthwhile explanation given for the delay and in such circumstances the application for amendment could not have been allowed and the impugned orders are bad for the aforesaid reasons.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Pankaj Gupta for the respondent no.2 have jointly submitted that the basic cardinal principles for considering an application for amendment is the test whether the amendment is necessary for an effectual and effective adjudication of the controversy involved.

8. It has been informed by Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel that the amendment which was allowed by the Revisional Court has already been incorporated month ago and the matter is now listed before the trial court on 12.11.2025.

9. It is further urged that an application for amendment may not be dismissed merely on the ground of delay especially when no right has accrued in favour of the other party. In the instant case, the issue as to whether the plaint or the suit was barred in terms of Section 80 CPC or 106 of the Act of 1947 is a question of law which can be ascertained in light of the averments made in the plaint as the 3 A227 No. 6379 of 2025 documents filed by the plaintiff.

10. There is no other aspect involved in the instant plea and since the evidence is yet not concluded, it also cannot be said that the plaintiff/petitioner would suffer any injustice as he still has the right to file his response to the amended plea and even if required may file his documentary evidence/oral evidence for the aforesaid purpose.

11. The maintainability of the suit hinges on the issue of Section 80 CPC and 106 of the Act of 1947 and such a plea cannot be said to have super imposed a new cause of action or an admission is sought to be withdrawn and for the aforesaid reasons the discretion which has been exercised by the trial court as well as the revisional court does not suffer from any palpable error for this Court to intervene, accordingly the petition deserves to be dismissed The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

12. Apparently, the suit filed by the petitioner was for permanent injunction. Though the defendants in the suit had already filed their written statement and after framing of issues, on application for amendment was moved. The defendants endeavours to incorporate the plea of want of notice in terms of Section 80 CPC and Section 106 of the Act of 1947. The two courts had noticed mere delay cannot be a ground for rejecting an application for amendment.

13. Merely because the application has been moved with delay will not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an application for amendment. It is also to be noticed that the issue sought to be incorporated by amendment is a plea which is available of the defendants of the suit which otherwise may not be available to a private litigant.

14. It is not as a this plea is sought to be incorporated or introduced the behest of the any private person, hence, circumstances the plea being a question which has to be adjudicated on the basis of the averments as well as the evidence led by the 4 A227 No. 6379 of 2025 plaintiff, hence in introducing such an amendment cannot be said to have any adverse impact either on the rights of the plaintiff or the defendants.

15. A party is entitled to raise a plea subject to it being proved and it cannot be said that at the stage when the application for amendment is being considered, there is any prejudice which has been caused only apart from the aspect of delay which has been compensated by the trial court by awarding costs. [see Reva Jeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayan Swamy & sons (2009) 10 SCC 84]

16. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find that the order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment and the order passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision of the petitioner suffers from any jurisdictional error which may attract the attention of this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

17. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, mere dismissal of the petition may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the plea sought to be incorporated by amendment which needless to say would be considered by the trial court after framing appropriate issues and permitting the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.

18. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. October 31, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.)

Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.2.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the District Judge Shrawasti in Civil Revision No.1 of 2024 which has been dismissed, as a consequence, the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the trial court allowing an application for amendment filed on behalf of defendants has been affirmed.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shrawasti seeking remedy against the defendants not to interfere in the ownership and possession or creating any sort of interference in the College and its management being run by the plaintiff.

4. The said suit came to be contested by the defendants who had filed the written statement. However, at a later stage, after issues were framed, an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the defendant no.2 seeking to incorporate two pleas in their written statement relating to absence of notice under Section 2 A227 No. 6379 of 2025 80 CPC as well as absence of notice under Section 106 of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947).

5. Initially, the said application was allowed by means of order dated

20.07.2018 which was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision bearing No.11 of 2018 which came to be allowed vide order dated

12.01.2021 and the matter was remitted to the trial court for deciding the application for amendment afresh. It is thereafter that the trial court after hearing the parties by means of order dated 28.11.2023 allowed the amendment which has also been affirmed in the revision which has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court by means of this petition.

6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for amendment was filed by the State Authorities after about four years apart from the fact that the issues had already been framed. There was no worthwhile explanation given for the delay and in such circumstances the application for amendment could not have been allowed and the impugned orders are bad for the aforesaid reasons.

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Pankaj Gupta for the respondent no.2 have jointly submitted that the basic cardinal principles for considering an application for amendment is the test whether the amendment is necessary for an effectual and effective adjudication of the controversy involved.

8. It has been informed by Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel that the amendment which was allowed by the Revisional Court has already been incorporated month ago and the matter is now listed before the trial court on 12.11.2025.

9. It is further urged that an application for amendment may not be dismissed merely on the ground of delay especially when no right has accrued in favour of the other party. In the instant case, the issue as to whether the plaint or the suit was barred in terms of Section 80 CPC or 106 of the Act of 1947 is a question of law which can be ascertained in light of the averments made in the plaint as the 3 A227 No. 6379 of 2025 documents filed by the plaintiff.

10. There is no other aspect involved in the instant plea and since the evidence is yet not concluded, it also cannot be said that the plaintiff/petitioner would suffer any injustice as he still has the right to file his response to the amended plea and even if required may file his documentary evidence/oral evidence for the aforesaid purpose.

11. The maintainability of the suit hinges on the issue of Section 80 CPC and 106 of the Act of 1947 and such a plea cannot be said to have super imposed a new cause of action or an admission is sought to be withdrawn and for the aforesaid reasons the discretion which has been exercised by the trial court as well as the revisional court does not suffer from any palpable error for this Court to intervene, accordingly the petition deserves to be dismissed The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

12. Apparently, the suit filed by the petitioner was for permanent injunction. Though the defendants in the suit had already filed their written statement and after framing of issues, on application for amendment was moved. The defendants endeavours to incorporate the plea of want of notice in terms of Section 80 CPC and Section 106 of the Act of 1947. The two courts had noticed mere delay cannot be a ground for rejecting an application for amendment.

13. Merely because the application has been moved with delay will not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain an application for amendment. It is also to be noticed that the issue sought to be incorporated by amendment is a plea which is available of the defendants of the suit which otherwise may not be available to a private litigant.

14. It is not as a this plea is sought to be incorporated or introduced the behest of the any private person, hence, circumstances the plea being a question which has to be adjudicated on the basis of the averments as well as the evidence led by the 4 A227 No. 6379 of 2025 plaintiff, hence in introducing such an amendment cannot be said to have any adverse impact either on the rights of the plaintiff or the defendants.

15. A party is entitled to raise a plea subject to it being proved and it cannot be said that at the stage when the application for amendment is being considered, there is any prejudice which has been caused only apart from the aspect of delay which has been compensated by the trial court by awarding costs. [see Reva Jeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayan Swamy & sons (2009) 10 SCC 84]

16. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find that the order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment and the order passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision of the petitioner suffers from any jurisdictional error which may attract the attention of this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

17. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, mere dismissal of the petition may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the plea sought to be incorporated by amendment which needless to say would be considered by the trial court after framing appropriate issues and permitting the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.

18. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. October 31, 2025 (Jaspreet Singh,J.)