Allahabad High Court
A227/11846/2022 of VIKAS JAISWAL Vs RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL on 18 March 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11846 of 2022 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Allahabad allowing the amendment application filed by the defendant/respondent in
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11846 of 2022
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Allahabad allowing the amendment application filed by the defendant/respondent in the suit. The revision filed by the petitioner has also be been dismissed by order dated 25.11.2022.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment application has been filed after six and a half years of filing the written statement. It has been further contended that earlier the defendant has claimed himself to be owner and later on by the amendment he wanted to add a paragraph claiming adverse possession over the property in dispute.
3. Replying to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent contended that mere delay cannot be a ground of rejection of amendment application. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the amendment cannot be prejudged at the stage of allowing the amendment. It has been further submitted that in a written statement alternative pleas can be taken by the defendant and no illegality has been committed by the courts below in allowing the amendment application.
4. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. I am of the view that two amendments have been sought by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Vikas Jaiswal .....Petitioner(s) Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal .....Respondent(s)
defendant in the written statement, one relating to the fact that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was barred by limitation. Question of limitation is a legal plea and that could be raised, even without amendment. Even otherwise, under Section 3 the of Limitation Act the court has to see whether the plaint is barred by limitation or not even without there being any application on behalf of other parties. Therefore, I am of the view that no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff/petitioner by the said amendment. So far as adding the plea of adverse possession, I am in agreement with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondent.
6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the courts below in allowing the amendment application.
7. This petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. March 19, 2026 Ved Prakash A227 No. 11846 of 2022 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad