Teklal Nayak And Ors Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court 5 Aug 2019 WP227 No. 448 Of 2019 (2019) 08 CHH CK 0038
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

WP227 No. 448 Of 2019

Hon'ble Bench

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

Advocates

H.S. Patel, Ravi Bhagat

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred

Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 227

Judgement Text

Translate:

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 03/04/2019 by which learned trial Court

has rejected the application for amendment in the plaint filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs herein, finding no substance in it.

2. Mr. H.S. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the proposed amendment is relevant for just and proper disposal of

the civil suit therefore, it ought to have been allowed by the trial Court.

3. Mr. Ravi Bhagat, learned deputy Government advocate for the State would submit that the impugned order is strictly in accordance with law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

5. The civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 16/01/2014 whereas the amendment application was moved on the basis of demarcation report as well as

on the basis of judgment and decree of other civil suit. The plaintiffs proposed to make amendment stating that the old khasra number has now

changed and the new khasra number needs to be incorporated in the plaint, therefore, the proposed amendment is based on the subsequent event

which ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. As such, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the amendment

application filed by the plaintiffs is allowed subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to respondents/defendants No. 2 to 6 before the trial Court. The

defendants will be entitled to make consequential amendments in the plaint.

6. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

From The Blog
Supreme Court Rejects NALSA Appeal Filed Sans Convict Consent
Oct
30
2025

Story

Supreme Court Rejects NALSA Appeal Filed Sans Convict Consent
Read More
Supreme Court Raps Insurers for Technical Appeals in Claims
Oct
30
2025

Story

Supreme Court Raps Insurers for Technical Appeals in Claims
Read More