Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/1778/2014 of MRS. KAMLESH SHARMA Vs MR. S.C. JOSHI on 29 December 2023

Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No.1778 of 2014 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J. Mr. Karmanya Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Siddhant Manral, Advocate for the

|**No**|**Date**|**Office Notes,** **reports, orders or** **proceedings or** **directions and** **Registrar’s order** **with Signatures**||**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**| |---|---|---|---|---| |||||WPMS No.1778 of 2014 **Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.** Mr. Karmanya Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Siddhant Manral, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1. 2. This is plaintiff’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 15.12.2012 passed by learned II ndAdditional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No.520 of 2007. By the said order, the application, seeking leave to amend the plaint filed by petitioner, was rejected on the ground that the amendment, if allowed, would change the nature of the suit and would increase the area of the disputed property by nearly 100% . Petitioner challenged the said order passed by trial Court by filing Civil Revision No.21 of 2013, which was dismissed by learned III rdAdditional District Judge, Dehradun vide judgment dated 31.03.2014. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the record indicates that application, seeking leave to amend the plaint, was filed by petitioner after more than 5 years of filing the suit and, by that time, issues were also framed. Both the learned Courts below have held that, by allowing the amendment application, the nature ofthe suitwould be changed and|

||||the area of the subject land would also be substantially increased. 4. The reasons given by learned Courts below for rejecting petitioner’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. are valid. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. **( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.)** 29.12.2023 _Arpan_| |---|---|---|---|

Page 1 of 1

Loading citations and judicial treatment…