High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The instant civil revision has been preferred by the revisionist assailing the order dated 10.04.2023, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda in Regular Suit No.989 of 2009, whereby an application for amendment, moved by the revisionist, was rejected.

3. The instant revision is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as the Registry of this Court has reported that the revision is barred by 32 days.

4. The record indicates that on 22.08.2023, notices were issued to the respondent on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the office vide its report dated 18.09.2023 found that the service on the respondent was deemed sufficient.

5. The respondent has put in appearance as the names of Shri Pramod Kumar and Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav have been shown as counsel for the respondent, however, none has put in appearance nor any objections to the delay condonation has been filed by them.

6. Since, there is none on behalf of the respondent nor any illness or out of station slip has been sent, accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the revisionist on the application seeking condonation of delay.

7. The Court has considered the grounds shown in the accompanying affidavit and finds that the cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for seeking condonation is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

8. The Court has thereafter heard learned counsel for the revisionist on the admission of the aforesaid revision.

9. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist as plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, registered as Regular Suit No.989 of 2009. It was pleaded in the said suit that the plaintiff and the defendant were real brothers. An agreement was entered in between the parties and in pursuance whereof, all the powers to construct as well as to receive any consideration, meet any liabilities as well as for alienating the property known as 'Pratap Complex' was with the plaintiff.

10. It was urged that in pursuance of the said agreement, 'Pratap Complex' was constructed and the defendant, who had change of heart had started interfering which led the revisionist to institute a suit and seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the construction of the 'Pratap Complex' or in respect of any shop or part thereof.

11. The said suit came to be contested. After the issues were framed, the parties led their evidence. Only on 28.11.2022, the plaintiff-revisionist moved an application for an amendment before the trial Court. Primarily two proposed amendments were sought to be incorporated, one in Paragraph-4 bringing on record the extent of the constructions and the second was in respect of the relief which was proposed to be amended by introducing the reference of the agreements dated 13.02.2001 and 24.12.2002 in the relief paragraph was sought to be incorporated.

12. The trial Court after due consideration did not find favour with the application for amendment and dismissed the said application by means of the impugned order which has been challenged in the revision and it is urged that the grounds upon which the amendment has been rejected is not cogent.

13. It is also urged that it has been observed in the impugned order that the Commissioner's report was not filed by the plaintiff nor the agreement was placed and, therefore, an attempt was being made to introduce new pleadings and this it is urged is mis-appreciation of submissions and non- consideration of the material available on record.

14. It is urged that the Commissioner's report was placed on record and there was ample pleadings insofar as the amendment were considered and, therefore, the amendment ought to have been allowed.

15. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

16. Apparently, the cause of action which is reflected from a copy of the plaint indicates that the parties were real brothers and their rights and obligations are subject matter of an agreement dated 13.02.2001 which finds mention in Paragraph- 5 of the plaint as well as another agreement dated 24.12.2002 which finds mention in Paragraph-6 of the plaint.

17. It is also to be noticed that from a perusal of the application for amendment that what is trying to be incorporated is a fact which is introduced, after the evidence of the revisionist, who is plaintiff before the trial Court, has already been led. The parties are required to prove their respective case at which the parties are at variance and in light of the issues framed.

18. In the instant case, the plaintiff has already mentioned the agreements in Paragraphs-5 and 6 as noticed above and he has already led his evidence of leading real reason.

19. So far as the extent of constructions is concerned, in this regard as well, the stage of leading evidence is over and once that is so, there is no real reason to permit the revisionist to introduce pleadings by way of amendment. The parties had already gone to trial, considering the respective pleadings and the case each of the party has to meet. Once the evidence is concluded, at this late stage, moving an application for amendment does not serve any purpose except to delay the proceedings. The counsel for the revisionist could not dispute the fact that the plaintiff has concluded his evidence and whatever evidence was thought fit to be led by the revisionist has already been done.

20. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that only substantial plea is being left out as the fact sought to be brought by way of amendment, its foundation was already there in the pleadings and the parties have left their respective evidence. The trial Court has rejected the application for the reasons which this Court does not find to be erroneous and that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court for this Court to intervene at this stage. Accordingly, this Court finds that the revision is misconceived and it is dismissed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The instant civil revision has been preferred by the revisionist assailing the order dated 10.04.2023, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda in Regular Suit No.989 of 2009, whereby an application for amendment, moved by the revisionist, was rejected.

3. The instant revision is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as the Registry of this Court has reported that the revision is barred by 32 days.

4. The record indicates that on 22.08.2023, notices were issued to the respondent on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the office vide its report dated 18.09.2023 found that the service on the respondent was deemed sufficient.

5. The respondent has put in appearance as the names of Shri Pramod Kumar and Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav have been shown as counsel for the respondent, however, none has put in appearance nor any objections to the delay condonation has been filed by them.

6. Since, there is none on behalf of the respondent nor any illness or out of station slip has been sent, accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the revisionist on the application seeking condonation of delay.

7. The Court has considered the grounds shown in the accompanying affidavit and finds that the cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the application for seeking condonation is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

8. The Court has thereafter heard learned counsel for the revisionist on the admission of the aforesaid revision.

9. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist as plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gonda, registered as Regular Suit No.989 of 2009. It was pleaded in the said suit that the plaintiff and the defendant were real brothers. An agreement was entered in between the parties and in pursuance whereof, all the powers to construct as well as to receive any consideration, meet any liabilities as well as for alienating the property known as 'Pratap Complex' was with the plaintiff.

10. It was urged that in pursuance of the said agreement, 'Pratap Complex' was constructed and the defendant, who had change of heart had started interfering which led the revisionist to institute a suit and seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the construction of the 'Pratap Complex' or in respect of any shop or part thereof.

11. The said suit came to be contested. After the issues were framed, the parties led their evidence. Only on 28.11.2022, the plaintiff-revisionist moved an application for an amendment before the trial Court. Primarily two proposed amendments were sought to be incorporated, one in Paragraph-4 bringing on record the extent of the constructions and the second was in respect of the relief which was proposed to be amended by introducing the reference of the agreements dated 13.02.2001 and 24.12.2002 in the relief paragraph was sought to be incorporated.

12. The trial Court after due consideration did not find favour with the application for amendment and dismissed the said application by means of the impugned order which has been challenged in the revision and it is urged that the grounds upon which the amendment has been rejected is not cogent.

13. It is also urged that it has been observed in the impugned order that the Commissioner's report was not filed by the plaintiff nor the agreement was placed and, therefore, an attempt was being made to introduce new pleadings and this it is urged is mis-appreciation of submissions and non- consideration of the material available on record.

14. It is urged that the Commissioner's report was placed on record and there was ample pleadings insofar as the amendment were considered and, therefore, the amendment ought to have been allowed.

15. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

16. Apparently, the cause of action which is reflected from a copy of the plaint indicates that the parties were real brothers and their rights and obligations are subject matter of an agreement dated 13.02.2001 which finds mention in Paragraph- 5 of the plaint as well as another agreement dated 24.12.2002 which finds mention in Paragraph-6 of the plaint.

17. It is also to be noticed that from a perusal of the application for amendment that what is trying to be incorporated is a fact which is introduced, after the evidence of the revisionist, who is plaintiff before the trial Court, has already been led. The parties are required to prove their respective case at which the parties are at variance and in light of the issues framed.

18. In the instant case, the plaintiff has already mentioned the agreements in Paragraphs-5 and 6 as noticed above and he has already led his evidence of leading real reason.

19. So far as the extent of constructions is concerned, in this regard as well, the stage of leading evidence is over and once that is so, there is no real reason to permit the revisionist to introduce pleadings by way of amendment. The parties had already gone to trial, considering the respective pleadings and the case each of the party has to meet. Once the evidence is concluded, at this late stage, moving an application for amendment does not serve any purpose except to delay the proceedings. The counsel for the revisionist could not dispute the fact that the plaintiff has concluded his evidence and whatever evidence was thought fit to be led by the revisionist has already been done.

20. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that only substantial plea is being left out as the fact sought to be brought by way of amendment, its foundation was already there in the pleadings and the parties have left their respective evidence. The trial Court has rejected the application for the reasons which this Court does not find to be erroneous and that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court for this Court to intervene at this stage. Accordingly, this Court finds that the revision is misconceived and it is dismissed. Costs are made easy. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Rakesh/- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench