Dayanand VS Mohan @ Ghure

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Dayanand – Appellant
Versus
Mohan @ Ghure – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate
For the Respondent:Vivek Singh Shrinet, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.—Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Singh Shrinet, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the trial court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, Gorakhpur, rejecting the application for amendment filed by the petitioner in the plaint. Revision against the said order has also been dismissed by order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Gorakhpur in Civil Revision No. 124 of 2022.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the amendment, the petitioner has only changed the relief from mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove their constructions and to hand over the possession to the plaintiff to the prayer for possession of the property in dispute apart from minor corrections in the plaint. The said application has been erroneously rejected on the ground that the application has been filed after a long lapse of time and therefore, the same cannot be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document