Back
S.B.SINHA, D.K.JAIN
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION, GORAKHPUR – Appellant
Versus
BHAGWAN DAS (D) BY LRS – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
D.K. JAIN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by North Eastern Railway Administration arises out of orders dated 17th July, 2002 and 14th June, 2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal. By the first impugned order, the second appeal, preferred by the appellant, was dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law arose for consideration of the Court. By the same order, the High Court has dismissed one of the applications filed by the appellant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short C.P.C.), seeking leave to amend the written statement, on the ground that such an application cannot be entertained in the second appeal. An application preferred by the appellant for review of order dated 17th July, 2002 has been dismissed vide latter order dated 14th June, 2005.
3. In order to appreciate the issue, requiring determination, a few material facts may be stated: The respondent herein instituted a suit for perpetual prohibitory injunction against the appellant herein, restraining them from interfering in his possession and cultivation of crop on plot bearing Nos.129 and 131 situated in village Bhajanpura, Tehsil and District Champawat. The
None. No entries contain language indicating that any case (primarily references to North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs., (2008) 8 SCC 511) has been overruled, reversed, abrogated, criticized, or treated as bad law. No keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," "criticized," or "questioned" appear in any snippet.
The overwhelming majority of entries (~95%) treat the case positively, citing it approvingly as precedent, relying on it, quoting its holdings (especially para 16 on amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and para 13 on additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC), reiterating its principles, or placing explicit reliance on it for legal propositions. Examples include:
SICAL Logistics Limited, (formerly known as South India Corporation (Agencies) Limited) VS Marg Constructions Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. GRK Reddy & Others - 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 428: "the very same view was also expressed by the Apex Court in North Eastern Railway Administration V. ... As has been held in North Eastern Railway Administration case" (expressly adopts the view).
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Asha Devi Garg - 2009 0 Supreme(Raj) 758: "Supreme Court reiterating its view expressed by earlier three" (reiterates positively).
Ramchandra @ Sriram VS Balkishan - 2009 0 Supreme(Raj) 2379: "Learned counsel for the appellant-applicants has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in North Eastern Railway Administration ... wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court" (relied upon).
MANU MAHARANI HOTELS LTD. VS THAKUR DAN SINGH BIST TRUST - 2010 0 Supreme(UK) 252: "the Supreme Court held as under" (quotes approvingly).
Sunil Kumar VS Shanti Devi - 2011 0 Supreme(Pat) 2129: Quotes para 16 and applies procedural principles positively.
Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. VS Union of India - 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 1063: "reliance is placed upon decisions in ... North Eastern Railway Administration" (reliance).
Numerous others (e.g., C. K. Balaji and The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. VS P. Chandrasekaran - 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 5866, Manu Maharani Hotels Ltd. VS Thakur Dan Singh Bist Trust - Current Civil Cases (2010), State of M. P. VS Shri Gandhi Nagar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. - 2010 0 Supreme(MP) 1114, Anowar Ali VS Jola Bibi - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 425, AMIT GARG VS TABASSUM - 2012 0 Supreme(All) 1139, Radiant Silk Mills VS Addl. Civil Judge (JD), No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur - 2012 0 Supreme(Raj) 603, Mount Mary Enterprises VS Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 7 Supreme 631, Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board VS Syed Shah Taquiuddin Ahmad - 2011 0 Supreme(Pat) 2242, HDFC Bank Ltd. VS Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2017), MAHADEVAPPA S/O IRAPPA HUDEDAMANI VS SHANKAREPPA S/O IRAPPA HUDEDAMANI - 2016 0 Supreme(Kar) 517, Haradhan Dhibar, S/o Late Amulya Kewat VS State of Jharkhand - 2017 0 Supreme(Jhk) 539, Arjun Shaba Patyekar VS Kashinath Shamba Naik Gaunkar (since Deceased), through his legal heirs - 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 459, Kamlesh Kumar VS Bal Krishna - 2018 0 Supreme(All) 2437, Laxmi Alias Bussa Cloth Market Owner's Association VS Rajendra Harshadlal Shah - 2020 0 Supreme(Guj) 192, Jhaman Pahan VS State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh - 2020 0 Supreme(Jhk) 785, Rattan Lal VS Asha Rani - 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 2155, SHRI. ALLAWALLI S/O. BAKASHARSAB SHAIKH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs. vs SMT. KHAIRUNBI W/O. HASHEMPATIL PANDRE - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9569, Smt.Meena Gupta vs Shriman Ayukt Mahodaya - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2419) quote paras 13-17 or state "held," "observed," "principles governing," or "reliance placed," indicating adoption/following.
This pattern shows the case is good law, consistently followed on amendment/additional evidence issues.
A small number of entries explicitly distinguish the case or note it as not applicable/helpful, without disapproving the holding:
Ansar Crafts VS Ayushi Enterprises - 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 105: "Similarly, the judgment rendered in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur (supra), is also not applicable to" (distinguished on facts).
Madan Pal (III) VS State of Haryana - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 355: "... North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs 2008 (8) SCC 511 would not be of much help, since in that case the appeal was allowed" (distinguished as not helpful to the issue).
Entries with minimal or fragmentary text providing only the case name or incomplete citation without contextual language on treatment (e.g., no "relied on," "held," "not applicable," or quotes). These conservatively lean toward followed (no negative indicators), but treatment is ambiguous due to lack of detail:
Peethani Suryanarayana VS Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore - 2009 0 Supreme(Raj) 31: Mere citation "In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs."
Peethani Suryanarayana VS Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 258: Mere citation "In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs."
P. A. Jayalakshmi VS H. Saradha - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1271: Mere citation "In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs."
P. A. Jayalakshmi VS H. Saradha - 2009 0 Supreme(Ori) 215: Mere citation "In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs."
Abdul Noor and Ors. VS Katan Bibi and Ors. - 2013 0 Supreme(Gau) 744: Fragmentary reference amid other text, unclear reliance.
R. Mahalakshmi VS B. Sukumar - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 3055: Brief procedural note, no clear treatment language.
These represent simple headnote-style citations, common in positive contexts but lacking explicit indicators.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
