8/17/2016

JUDGMENT/ORDERINFIRSTAPPEALFROMORDERNo.319of2006atLucknowDated9.4.2013CASETITLEJagdeoPrasadVs.Panchu

eLegalixAllahabadHighCourtJudgmentInformationSystem(Judgment/OrderinText
Format)

ThisisanUNCERTIFIEDcopyforinformation/reference.Forauthenticcopypleaserefertocertifiedcopyonly.In
caseofanymistake,pleasebringittothenoticeofDeputyRegistrar(Copying).
HIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATALLAHABAD,LUCKNOWBENCH
CourtNo.12
Case:FIRSTAPPEALFROMORDERNo.319of2006
Petitioner:JagdeoPrasad
Respondent:Panchu
PetitionerCounsel:SabhapatiShukla
RespondentCounsel:Mohd.ArifKhan
Hon'bleArvindKumarTripathi(II),J.
(1)HeardSriDayaShankerTripathi,Advocate,holdingbriefofSriSabhapatiShukla,learnedcounselforthepetitionerand
SriMohd.ArifKhan,learnedcounselfortherespondent.
(2)ThisfirstappealfromorderhasbeenfiledbyJagdeoPrasadagainstthejudgmentandorderdated20thJanuary,2006
passedbythethenSpecialJudge(E.C.Act)/AdditionalDistrictJudge,Bahraich,bywhichlearnedCourtbelowhassetaside
decreeandjudgmentdated16.3.2001passedbyCivilJudge,Sr.DivisionBahraich,bywhichRegularSuitNo.929/1992
(PanchuVs.Jagdeo)wasdismissedandFirstCivilAppealNo.15/2001(PanchuVs.Jagdeo)wasallowedandcasewas
remandedbacktothetrialcourttotrythesuitagain.
(3)ShornofunnecessarydetailsacivilsuitwasfiledbyPanchuagainstJagdeoPrasadforpermanentinjunctionwitha
prayerthatdefendantberestrainedfrominterferinginpeacefulpossessionovertheplotinsuitofplaintiffandalsofor
restrainingdefendantfromtakingoverforcefulpossessionandfrommakingconstructionovertheland.Duringthependency
ofthesuitanamendmentapplicationunderOrder6,Rule17C.P.C.wasmovedbytheplaintiffallegingthatdefendanthas
forcefullydugthefoundationandmadesomeconstructionoverthedisputedlandandfurtherreliefwassoughttobeadded
thatbypassingadecreeofdemolition,theillegalconstructionsmadeovertheplotindisputebedemolishedattheexpense
ofdefendant.ThisamendmentapplicationwasrejectedbyCivilJudgeon17.10.1997.Again,anamendmentapplicationon
thesamegroundwasmovedbytheplaintiff98A.Lateronagainanamendmentapplication122Awasfiledbytheplaintiff
onthesameallegationsandforaddingthesamerelief.ThisapplicationwasrejectedbytheCourton18.8.1998civilrevision
filedagainstthatorderwasalsodismissed.Afterthattheregularsuitwasfinallydecidedon16.3.2001.Acivilappealwas
filedagainstthatjudgmentasCivilAppealNo.15/2001byPanchu.Duringthependencyofappealanapplicationfor
amendmentontheearliergroundandforearlierreliefwasmoved.Thisapplicationwasallowedbytheappellatecourtand
judgmentandorderofthetrialcourtwassetaside.Feelingaggrievedthisfirstappealfromorderhasbeenfiled.
(4)Ithasbeenarguedfromthesideofappellantthatsinceamendmentapplicationwastwicerejectedbythetrialcourtand
theappealiscontinuationofregularsuit,hencetheamendmentapplicationfiledbeforetheappellatecourtwasbarredbyres
judicataanditcouldnotbeallowed.LearnedcounselrelieduponacaseofU.P.StateRoadTransportCorporationVs.State
ofU.P.andAnother(2005)1SCC444.Itwasalsoarguedthatnopartycanbeallowedtofillupthelacunainhiscaseafter
thesuithasbeendecidedandwrongremandordercanbeinterferedwith.
(5)Learnedcounselfortherespondentarguedthatcourthasinherentpowertocorrectitsownerrorandwhileallowingthe
amendmentapplication,appellatecourthascorrectedtheerrorcommittedbytrialcourt.Learnedcounselfortherespondent
hasrelieduponthecasesofBijayKumarSaraogi.Vs.StateofJharkhandAIR2005SupremeCourt2425andDeviDayal
RollingMillsVs.PrakashChimanlalParikh&Ors1993ACJ833(SupremeCourt).
(6)Ihavecarefullygonethroughthedecisionreferredbylearnedcounselforthepartiesandhavegonethroughand
consideredrespectivesubmission.
(7)Therecanbenodoubtthatappealiscontinuationoftheregularsuitsotheamendmentapplicationsrejectedbythetrial
courtwilloperateasresjudicatafortheamendmentapplicationbeforetheappellatecourt.ApexCourtinthecaseofU.P.
StateRoadTransportCorporationVs.StateofU.PandAnother(supra)hasheldthat
"11.Theprincipleofresjudicataisbasedontheneedofgivingafinalitytojudicialdecisions.Theprinciplewhichprevents
thesamecasebeingtwicelitigatedisofgeneralapplicationandisnotlimitedbythespecificwordsofSection11ofthe
CodeofCivilProcedureinthisrespect.Resjudicataappliesalsoasbetweentwostagesinthesamelitigationtothisextent
thatacourt,whetherthetrialcourtorahighercourthavingatanearlierstagedecidedamatterinonewaywillnotallowthe
partiestoreagitatethematteragainatasubsequentstageofthesameproceedings."
(8)Oneofthemoreimportantaspectwhichhastobeseenwhileallowingamendmentapplicationisthatwhethertherelief
addedhasbecometimebarredornot.Theregularsuitwasfiledintheyear1992andtheamendmentapplicationbeforethe
appellatecourtwasmovedon12.12.2005andthesamereliefwassoughttobeadded.Itispertinenttomentionherethat
thecivilrevisionwasalsofiledbytheplaintiffagainstrejectionofamendmentapplication122Awhichwasdismissedvide
orderdated15.12.2000.Thus,theorderrejectingtheamendmentapplicationhadbecomefinal.Inallthethreeamendment
applicationsmovedtwicebeforethetrialcourtandbeforetheappellatecourt,thecauseofactionwasthesameanditwas
http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do

1/2

8/17/2016

JUDGMENT/ORDERINFIRSTAPPEALFROMORDERNo.319of2006atLucknowDated9.4.2013CASETITLEJagdeoPrasadVs.Panchu

mentionedthatcauseofactionarosewhentheconstructionwasmadeon9.9.1997.Thus,theamendmentapplication
movedintheyear2005bywhichanewrelieffordemolitionwassoughttobeaddedwasclearlytimebarred.Inthecaseof
T.N.AlloyFoundryCoLtd.Vs.T.N.ElectricityBoardandOrs.(2004)3SupremeCourtcases)392.Itwasheldthatthecourt
wouldasaruledeclinetoallowamendmentsifafreshsuitontheamendedclaimwouldbebarredbylimitationonthedate
oftheapplication.Since,thereliefclaimedintheamendmentapplicationwhichwasfiledandallowedbytheappellatecourt
wastimebarredonthedateofapplication,hence,thatamendmentapplicationcannotbeallowedandtheappellatecourthas
erredinallowingtheamendmentapplicationandalsoerredinremandingthecasebeforethetrialcourt.Learnedappellate
courtshouldhavedecidedthecaseonmerits.Whiledecidingthecaseonmeritslearnedappellatecourthadfullrightto
determinethevalidityoforderrejectingtheamendmentapplicationbythetrialcourtthoughtherevisiontoowasdismissed.
Thevalidityoffinalorderpassedintrialcourtandrevisioncanbequestionedinappealandthentheprinciplesofresjudicata
wouldnotapplybecausethestageofappealisaltogetherdifferentandappellatecourtcanscrutinizetheorderpassedby
trialcourt.
(9)Fromtheabovediscussionthefirstappealfromorderisliabletobeallowedandisherebyallowed.Judgmentandorder
dated20.1.2006issetasideandCivilAppealNo.15/2001isremandedbacktotheappellatecourtfordecidingtheappeal
afreshaccordingtotheobservationsmadeinthebodyofthejudgment.
[ArvindKumarTripathi(II),J.]
OrderDate:9/4/2013
Subodh/

Visithttp://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.doformoreJudgments/Ordersdeliveredat
AllahabadHighCourtandItsBenchatLucknow.Disclaimer

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do

2/2