Sameer JaIn Vs. Satish Kumar Yadav

Sameer Jain vs Satish Kumar Yadav

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 27, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1054113

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/1054113
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 27, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sameer Jain

Advocate Smt. Varsha Kothari

Respondent

Satish Kumar Yadav

Excerpt

.....under article 227 of the constitution of india for quashment of the order dated 3.8.2012 (ann. p.1) passed by additional district judge, pipariya distt. hoshangabad in co.no.21-a/12 whereby the application of respondents/ defendants filed under 6 rule 17 of cpc for amendment in the written statement has been allowed. the petitioners.counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition along with the impugned order argued that the impugned amendment was proposed on behalf of the respondent after closing the evidence of the plaintiffs and by way of this amendment the entire nature of the defence of the defendants is going to be changed, therefore impugned order is not sustainable under the law and prayed for dismissal of such application by admitting and allowing this petition. having heard the counsel at length, after perusing the copy of amendment application along with the agreement (annexure p-4) on which the impugned suit is filed for specific performance and the written statements filed by the defendants/ respondents, i have found that the proposed amendment is noting but an additional approach or the different approach of the existing pleadings of the written statement. so, in such premises and also in view of the principle laid down by the apex court in the matter of a.k.gupta & sons ltd versus damodar valley corporation reported in air 196.sc 96.the 2 impugned order does not appear to be pervers.or contrary to legal position. consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. however, before parting from the matter, i would like to mention here that in the light of the proposed amendment the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for consequential amendment in the plaint and subject to allowing such application the trial court shall extend the opportunity to the plaintiffs even after closing their evidence to adduce the additional evidence in rebuttal of the aforesaid.....

Full Judgment

1 W.P.NO.14872/12(I).27.9.2012.

Smt.

Varsha Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioneRs.plaintiffs have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 3.8.2012 (Ann.

P.1) passed by Additional District Judge, Pipariya Distt.

Hoshangabad in Co.No.21-A/12 whereby the application of respondents/ defendants filed under 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the written statement has been allowed.

The petitioneRs.counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition along with the impugned order argued that the impugned amendment was proposed on behalf of the respondent after closing the evidence of the plaintiffs and by way of this amendment the entire nature of the defence of the defendants is going to be changed, therefore impugned order is not sustainable under the law and prayed for dismissal of such application by admitting and allowing this petition.

Having heard the counsel at length, after perusing the copy of amendment application along with the agreement (Annexure P-4) on which the impugned suit is filed for specific performance and the written statements filed by the defendants/ respondents, I have found that the proposed amendment is noting but an additional approach or the different approach of the existing pleadings of the written statement.

So, in such premises and also in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of A.K.Gupta & Sons Ltd versus Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 196.SC 96.the 2 impugned order does not appear to be perveRs.or contrary to legal position.

Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.

However, before parting from the matter, I would like to mention here that in the light of the proposed amendment the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for consequential amendment in the plaint and subject to allowing such application the trial Court shall extend the opportunity to the plaintiffs even after closing their evidence to adduce the additional evidence in rebuttal of the aforesaid pleadings as well as the opportunity to cross-examine the defendants' witnesses in this regard.

Subject to aforesaid observations and directions to the parties as well as the trial Court, this petition is dismissed.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Sameer Jain vs Satish Kumar Yadav Same Subject Education