Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2575 (ALL)

Aditya Kumar Vajpai v. Vinod Kumar Tripathi

2013-10-09

SANJAY MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Sanjay Misra, J. Heard Sri A.K. Tiwari holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice need not be issued to the respondents in view of the order being passed herein. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.02.2010 passed by the A.C.M.M., Court no. 4, Kanpur Nagar whereby the amendment application filed by the plaintiff petitioner being Application no. 145-A in Suit no. 967 of 2004 (Aditya Kumar Vajpai Vs Vinod Kumar Tripathi and others) has been rejected as also the revisional order dated 11.07.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 5, Kanpur Nagar in Civil Revision no. 67 of 2010 (Aditya Kumar Vajpai Vs Vinod Kumar Tripathi and others). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed the Suit no. 967 of 2010 for permanent injunction relating to the property in suit. According to him the temporary injunction was refused. During the pendency of the suit the defendants executed certain sale deeds whereupon the plaintiff petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of his pleadings and under Order I Rule 10 for impleading the subsequent purchaser. He states that the said application has been illegally rejected by both the courts below and hence this writ petition. 4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record in the plaint the relief claimed by the plaintiff petitioner against the then defendants was of a permanent injunction. Subsequently in the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC he wanted to replace that relief of permanent injunction by a declaratory decree against the defendants that the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed property. This relief which was sought by amendment was rejected by the courts below on the ground that although he has pleaded that sale deeds have executed in favour of strangers during pendency of the suit but he has not claim for cancellation of the sale deeds as such the declaratory decree claimed by? This relief which was sought by amendment was rejected by the courts below on the ground that although he has pleaded that sale deeds have executed in favour of strangers during pendency of the suit but he has not claim for cancellation of the sale deeds as such the declaratory decree claimed by? him by amendment to declare that he is in possession of the property in question is not a relief directed against the subsequent purchaser as such while finding that the nature of the suit itself is being changed the Trial Court has disallowed the prayer made by the plaintiff petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the subsequent purchaser for the reason that there is no relief claimed against the subsequent purchasers even in the amendment application. 5. The revisional court has affirmed the said order of the Trial Court. There is nothing on record of this writ petition to indicate that apart from the relief claimed by the plaintiff petitioner in his amendment application there is any other relief claimed by him against the subsequent purchaser so that they could be impleaded as defendants nor the amendment in the pleadings and relief claimed by amendment could be allowed since it was changing the nature of the suit from one of permanent injunction to that of a declaratory decree. 6. No error can be found in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. No order is passed as to costs.