Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2285 (ALL)

SHYAM SINGH v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

2003-09-26

S.P.MEHROTRA

body2003
S. P. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 6. 9. 2003 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 7), Muzaffarnagar. ( 2 ) FROM a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and annexures thereto, it appears that a suit being S. C. C. Suit No. 7 of 1988 was filed against the petitioner as defendant in respect of a shop, the details whereof are given in the judgment and order dated 21. 9. 1998 referred to hereinafter. ( 3 ) IT further appears that by the judgment and order dated 21. 9. 1998 passed by the learned Civil judge (Senior Division), Kairana, Muzaffarnagar, the said S. C. C. Suit No. 7 of 1988 was decreed against the petitioner. A copy of the said judgment and order dated 21. 9. 1998 has been filed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. ( 4 ) THEREUPON, it appears that the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial small Cause Courts Act, which was registered as S. C. C. Revision No. 88 of 1998. ( 5 ) IT further appears that during the pendency of the said S. C. C. Revision No. 88 of 1998, the petitioner filed an Application No. 108ga, inter alia, praying for being permitted to make amendments in the written statement. A copy of the said Application No. 108ga has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. ( 6 ) BY the order dated 6. 9. 2003 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the learned Additional District judge (Court No. 7), Muzaffarnagar rejected the said amendment Application No. 108 Ga filed by the petitioner. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above. ( 8 ) I have heard Sri Om Prakash holding brief for Shri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Joshi, who is stated to have filed caveat on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. ( 9 ) AS noted above, the impugned order dated 6. 9. 2003 has been passed on the amendment application No. 108ga filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the said S. C. C. Revision no. 88 of, 1998. 2, 3 and 4. ( 9 ) AS noted above, the impugned order dated 6. 9. 2003 has been passed on the amendment application No. 108ga filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the said S. C. C. Revision no. 88 of, 1998. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 6. 9. 2003 before this Court, in case, the final decision in S. C. C. Revision No. 88 of 1998 goes against the petitioner, and the petitioner challenges such final decision before this Court. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, without going into the merits of the impugned order dated 6. 9. 2003, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned order dated 6. 9. 2003 at this stage. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed at this stage subject to the observations made above. .