Mukta Vs. Padam Vishwas

Mukta vs Padam Vishwas

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 01, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1041981

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1041981
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Mar 01, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukta

Advocate Shri. Z.M.Shah

Respondent

Padam Vishwas

Excerpt

.....the original dispute raised by the petitioner is with regard to construction of wall being made on a passage 3 feet wide. it is seen that the parties were contesting the suit and certain proceedings with regard to construction of this passage under order xxxix rule 1 & 2 cpc have also been undertaken, certain order have been passed by the trial court and the appellate court in this regard. it has been held that much after framing of issues and recording of evidence petitioner moved an application for amendment claiming certain easementary right by contending that the defendant has raised certain construction by which right of the petitioner to received light and air through the window available in his house are being obstructed and, therefore, he wants to raise a plea by way of amendment in the plaint that his easementary right being affected by the subsequent construction. this application is rejected by the learned court merely on the ground that as grievance cannot be raised not it should have been raised in the original plaint and that 2 application is filed after more than 2 years of filing of plaint the same is rejected. having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal the record it is clear that for the relief claimed by the petitioner by way of amendment, a fresh suit claiming the same relief is maintainable, present dispute is between the same parties with regard to same property, if relief claimed by way of amendment can be made by filing a fresh suit it is a settled principle of law that amendment of such nature be allowed. all dispute existing between the parties with regard to same property should be settled in the same case. keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law this petition is allowed, learned court is directed to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint as prayed for vide annexure p-6 and after granting liberty to respondents herein to raise additional written statement in accordance to law. however, as the petitioner is.....

Full Judgment

Mukta versus Padam Vishwas & Another Writ Petition No.11701 ”

1. 3.2013: Shri Z.M.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel respondents.

Challenging an order passed by the Trial Court in rejecting a pretrial application for amendment in the plaint, this writ petition has been filed.

Petitioner is plaintiff in the suit in question and has filed the suit for declaration and injunction.

The original dispute raised by the petitioner is with regard to construction of wall being made on a passage 3 feet wide.

It is seen that the parties were contesting the suit and certain proceedings with regard to construction of this passage under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC have also been undertaken, certain order have been passed by the trial court and the appellate court in this regard.

It has been held that much after framing of issues and recording of evidence petitioner moved an application for amendment claiming certain easementary right by contending that the defendant has raised certain construction by which right of the petitioner to received light and air through the window available in his house are being obstructed and, therefore, he wants to raise a plea by way of amendment in the plaint that his easementary right being affected by the subsequent construction.

This application is rejected by the learned court merely on the ground that as grievance cannot be raised not it should have been raised in the original plaint and that 2 application is filed after more than 2 years of filing of plaint the same is rejected.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal the record it is clear that for the relief claimed by the petitioner by way of amendment, a fresh suit claiming the same relief is maintainable, present dispute is between the same parties with regard to same property, if relief claimed by way of amendment can be made by filing a fresh suit it is a settled principle of law that amendment of such nature be allowed.

All dispute existing between the parties with regard to same property should be settled in the same case.

Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law this petition is allowed, learned Court is directed to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint as prayed for vide Annexure P-6 and after granting liberty to respondents herein to raise additional written statement in accordance to law.

However, as the petitioner is responsible for the delay in seeking amendment, the amendment shall be allowed subject to petitioner's paying cost of Rs.2,500/- to the defendant.

With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Mukta vs Padam Vishwas Same Subject Education