Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bishan Singh vs Sudhir Malik on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3757 /2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30336/2019
BISHAN SINGH & ORS. .. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SUDHIR MALIK & ORS. .. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit before the Court of the Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun against the respondents/ defendants for a declaration under Section 229B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P.Z.A. and LR Act). The suit was contested and post trial, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.09.2014. The appellants preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, Dehradun which was dismissed by judgment dated 24.09.2015. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Thereafter, the appellants preferred a Second Date: 2022.05.11 17:06:50 IST Reason: Appeal before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand at Dehradun.
2The appellants filed an application seeking amendment in order to incorporate a challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Commissioner, as apparently there was a mistake in setting out, the same in the prayer paragraph, which was objected to by the respondents. The Board of Revenue allowed the amendment application, subject to costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
The respondents thereafter preferred a writ petition being writ petition No. 1433/2018 (M/S) before the High Court and in terms of the order dated 13.03.2019, the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the plea for amendment had become time barred. The High Court based its decision inter alia on the finding that the appellant had not given any reasons for condonation of delay.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are unable to sustain the impugned order which is, to say the least, taking a highly technical view of the amendment in the prayer, which in any case had been allowed by the Board of Revenue before which the second appeal was pending and thus it did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 3 of the Constitution of India. We are also persuaded in our decision by the doctrine that rules of procedure are meant to be handmaidens for the administration of justice.
The impugned order is, thus, set aside and the appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
....................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ...................J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] NEW DELHI, MAY 09, 2022.
4
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.6 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 30336/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-03-2019 in WPMS No. 1433/2018 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital) BISHAN SINGH & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SUDHIR MALIK & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 09-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Dr. I.M. Quddusi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jabar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Swasti Priya, Adv.
for M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [ Signed order is placed on the file ]