# A.K. Dubey & Anr. Revisionists v. Exide Indus. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 379
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-18
- **Case number:** S.C.C. Revision No. 36 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/a-k-dubey-anr-revisionists-v-exide-indus-ltd-ors-48121
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -
Code of Civil Procedure , Order VI, Rule 17
CPC, Proviso - Amendment of pleadings -
after Trial commences - no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless the Court comes
to the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of
trial - once the trial has commenced, the
party
making
an
application
for
amendment, has to spell out clearly the
cause
which
had
prevented
it
from
bringing the amendment prior to the
commencement of trial and also disclose
the reason that despite due diligence it
was not in the notice of the party and only
when
the
said
fact
came
into
the
knowledge
of
the
party
claiming
amendment, that such application was
filed. (Para 17)

On 10.12.2014 S.C.C. Suit was filed by the
plaintiff for a decree for the amount of damages
for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,000/-
per day besides monthly rent of Rs.47,000/- In
the year 2017 issue Nos. 8 & 9 were decided
and the plaintiff was examined before the Court
below
-
On
11.12.2018,
an
amendment
application was filed by plaintiff by which he
sought amendment in relief clause seeking
arrears of rent from 01.11.2014 to 31.10.2018
and also sought eviction from property in
dispute - Held - In the amendment application
no whisper as to why there was delay on the
part of plaintiff in filing amendment application -
the
relief,
which
was
claimed
through
amendment was available when the suit for
damages was filed on 10.12.2014 and the
plaintiff could have claimed the relief for arrears
of rent and ejectment - Trial court rightly
rejected the amendment application

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. A.K. Dubey & Anr. Vs. Exide Indus. Ltd. & Ors.
379
income/donation and expenditure incurred
by the Trust from the date of this
judgement up to the date of handing over
charge shall also be accounted for and
intimated to the District Judge, Lucknow
every month by the interim five-member
Committee. The District Judge shall ensure
compliance of this order within a period of
three months from the date of publication
of
scheme
flagged
as
''Annexure-F'
alongwith the list of trustees nominated
against each office. Any order passed by
the District Court below or any subordinate
court in relation to the management and
administration of ''Aliganj Mahabirji Trust'
is hereby declared null and void and the
present petition is accordingly allowed. The
cost is made easy.

29.

The
record
of
objections
considered
by
Hon'ble
Mr.
Justice
Kamleshwar Nath (Retd.) as well as the
entire folder of rule making proceedings
from page 1 to 61 shall be treated as a part
of the record and preserved in the Court.
----------
(2022)02ILR A379
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 36 of 2020

A.K. Dubey & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
Exide Indus. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Sheo Shankar Tipathi, Sri Adya Prasad
Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manu Khare

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -
Code of Civil Procedure , Order VI, Rule 17
CPC, Proviso - Amendment of pleadings -
after Trial commences - no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless the Court comes
to the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of
trial - once the trial has commenced, the
party
making
an
application
for
amendment, has to spell out clearly the
cause
which
had
prevented
it
from
bringing the amendment prior to the
commencement of trial and also disclose
the reason that despite due diligence it
was not in the notice of the party and only
when
the
said
fact
came
into
the
knowledge
of
the
party
claiming
amendment, that such application was
filed. (Para 17)

On 10.12.2014 S.C.C. Suit was filed by the
plaintiff for a decree for the amount of damages
for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,000/-
per day besides monthly rent of Rs.47,000/- In
the year 2017 issue Nos. 8 & 9 were decided
and the plaintiff was examined before the Court
below
-
On
11.12.2018,
an
amendment
application was filed by plaintiff by which he
sought amendment in relief clause seeking
arrears of rent from 01.11.2014 to 31.10.2018
and also sought eviction from property in
dispute - Held - In the amendment application
no whisper as to why there was delay on the
part of plaintiff in filing amendment application -
the
relief,
which
was
claimed
through
amendment was available when the suit for
damages was filed on 10.12.2014 and the
plaintiff could have claimed the relief for arrears
of rent and ejectment - Trial court rightly
rejected the amendment application

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Suraj Prakash Bhasin Vs Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin
& ors. 1981 AIR SC 485

2. B.K.N.Pillai Vs P.Pillai & anr. 2000 AIR (SC)
614
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs U.O.I.
(2005) 6 SC 344

4. Chander Kanta Bansal Vs Rajinder Singh
Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117

5. Rajkumar Guruwara (dead) through LRs Vs
S.K.Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and
anr. (2008) 14 SCC 364

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.P.Tewari, learned
counsel for the revisionists. No one has
appeared for the opposite parties however,
a written argument was filed by Sri Manu
Khare, Advocate, on behalf of opposite
parties.

2. The present revision filed under
Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as
"Act, 1887") against judgment and order
dated 17.01.2020 passed by Additional
District
Judge/Fast
Track
Court-II
(Constituted under 14th Finance Scheme),
Gorakhpur,
dismissing
amendment
application filed under Order VI, Rule 17
CPC in S.C.C. Suit No.41 of 2014.

3. Before adverting to decide the issue
raised, a brief introduction of facts is
necessary for better appreciation of the
controversy in hand.

4. A lease agreement was executed on
03.11.2009
between
the
plaintiffsrevisionists and Exide Industries Ltd.,
defendant No.1 in respect of premises at
Narayan Complex, Plot No.A-28, Budha
Vihar Commercial Yojana, Deoria Bypass,
Gorakhpur, U.P., measuring 2600 sq.ft., the
owner of which is the plaintiffs-revisionists
and was let out for a period of five years
w.e.f. 01.11.2009 to 31.10.2014 to the
lessee/opposite party No.1 on a monthly
rent of Rs.39,000/-. According to the
plaintiff,
after
expiry
of
lease,
the
defendant was required to deliver vacant
possession of premises but he failed to
deliver the same and thus the plaintiff was
entitled for damages for use and occupation
of premises at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per day
in addition to monthly agreed rent. S.C.C.
Suit No.41 of 2014 was filed by the
plaintiff claiming relief for decree of
Rs.1,25,000/- against defendant and a
decree for the amount of damages for use
and occupation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per
day besides monthly rent of Rs.47,000/-.
The aforesaid suit was filed on 10.12.2014.
The defendant appeared and filed written
statement stating therein that they had
refused to extend the lease agreement, as
requested by the plaintiff, and had partly
removed their goods, which included
batteries and inverters by 26.10.2014 and
rest of the goods was to be removed before
the terms of lease agreement came to an
end but the revisionist came to the premises
on
26.10.2014
and
started
abusing
employees of the lessee-defendant No.1,
which forced them to run away from the
premises. Thereafter, the lock was put
illegally by the revisionists on the premises.
According to the defendant, stock of
batteries and office furnitures etc. were still
lying inside the premises. Further, the
defendant filed an application being Paper
No.23-Ga challenging the jurisdiction of
Court to entertain the plaint on the ground
that it was limited only for recovery of
interest in such property and there being no
determination of tenancy nor prayer for
eviction from the premises in question was
made. Thus, in view of Section 15 read
with Article 4 of Schedule II of Act, 1887,
the suit was not maintainable. The said
application was contested and an objection
was filed by the revisionist on 08.10.2015
2 All. A.K. Dubey & Anr. Vs. Exide Indus. Ltd. & Ors.
381
being Paper No.26-Ga. The said application
was rejected on 18.01.2016 against which a
S.C.C. Revision No.82 of 2016 was filed,
which is still pending. Further, proceedings
of Suit No.41 of 2014 continued and issues
were framed on 24.12.2016. Issue No.8
was decided on 07.02.2017 while issue
No.9 was decided on 03.03.2017. Evidence
of
PW-1
(plaintiff/revisionist)
was
completed and in his statement recorded on
10.05.2017, he had submitted that no other
evidence will be submitted by him.

5. On 11.12.2018, an amendment
application was filed by plaintiff under
Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C., being paper
No.59Ka/2 by which he has sought
amendment in relief clause seeking arrears
of rent from 01.11.2014 to 31.10.2018 and
also sought eviction from property in
dispute. The amendment application was
contested by the defendant by filing
objection, Paper no.61Ga/1. The Court
below vide judgment and order dated
17.01.2020
rejected
the
amendment
application hence the present revision.

6. Sri A.P.Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing for the revisionists submitted that
the Court below on the vague ground had
rejected the amendment application sought
by the plaintiff. He contended that there
was no delay in seeking amendment on the
part of plaintiff and the Court below should
have considered that neither the rent was
being paid by the defendant nor possession
was handed over and the plaintiff was
suffering great loss as no rent has been
tendered since 01.11.2014. According to
him, notice under Section 106 of Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 1882") was given on 01.11.2018
terminating the tenancy and thereby the
amendment was sought. He next contended
that the Court should be liberal in granting
amendment as it would avoid multiplicity
of litigation. Reliance has been placed upon
decision of Apex Court in case of Suraj
Prakash Bhasin vs. Smt. Raj Rani
Bhasin and others, 1981 AIR SC 485 and
B.K.N.Pillai vs. P.Pillai & anr. 2000 AIR
(SC) 614.

7. In the written argument, filed on
behalf of defendant-respondent No.1 it is
contended that after the amendment in the
provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 and
Proviso being inserted, the defendant was
required to state in his application that in
spite of due diligence, the plaintiff could
not raise the matter before commencement
of trial, but no such averment was made in
the
application
and
simplicitor
an
amendment has been sought in the plaint,
which is based upon new cause of action
and the remedy would be by filing a
separate suit, as the relief claimed of
possession was available to the plaintiff on
the date of institution of the suit on
10.12.2014, which he did not claim and
only suit for damage was filed.

8. I have heard the rival submissions
of the parties and perused the material on
record.

9. The short question, which emerges
for
consideration
is,
"whether
post
commencement
of
trial
of
suit,
an
application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC
simplicitor without disclosing any reason as
to the delay caused in moving the same can
be entertained ignoring the proviso to
Order VI, Rule 17 CPC?"

10. For better appreciation of the
controversy, a glance of provision of Order
VI, Rule 17 CPC, as amended on 01.7.2002
is
necessary,
which
is
extracted
hereasunder :
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"17. Amendment of pleadings.- The
Court may at any stage of the proceedings
allow either party to alter or amend his
pleading in such manner and on such terms
as may be just, and all such amendments
shall be made as may be necessary for the
purpose of determining the real questions
in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless the Court comes to
the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of
trial."

11. The legislature, in order to shorten
the litigation and speed up the trial of
litigation, had earlier omitted Rule 17 of
Order VI by amendment in the year 1999
but, after some protest, the provision was
restored with certain amendment coming in
the form of amending Act 22 of 2002. The
present proviso was added to Order VI,
Rule 17 CPC. The said amendment was
challenged in the case of Salem Advocate
Bar Association versus Union of India
(2005) 6 SC 344 before the Apex Court,
which was decided by Apex Court and the
amendment was upheld. Relevant para 26
of the judgment in the case of Salem Bar
Association (supra) is extracted hereas
under :

"Order VI Rule 17 of the Code deals
with
amendment
of
pleadings.
By
Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision
was deleted. It has again been restored by
Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an
added proviso to prevent application for
amendment being allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless court comes to the
conclusion that in spite of due diligence,
the party could not have raised the matter
before the commencement of trial. The
proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute
discretion to allow amendment at any
stage. Now, if application is filed after
commencement of trial, it has to be shown
that in spite of due diligence, such
amendment could not have been sought
earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous
applications which are filed to delay the
trial. There is no illegality in the
provision."

12. Thus, a break was put to the
unfettered power of the Court in regard to
frequent amendments, which were made by
the parties in their pleadings.

13. Post amendment, no application
for amendment can be allowed once the
trial has commenced. It is only when the
Court records its satisfaction and comes to
the conclusion that in spite of the due
diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of
trial, the application can be allowed.

14. Thus, two situations arise post
amendment, one; where the trial has not
commenced, the Courts are liberal in
granting amendments, but, where the trial
has
commenced,
the
party
making
application for amendment has to show that
despite best effort and due diligence, the
fact was not in its notice and came only
after the trial commenced, then only the
Court can allow such amendments.

15. In Chander Kanta Bansal vs.
Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC
117, the Apex Court while considering the
effect of the proviso added to Order VI,
Rule 17 CPC, in paras 11, 12, 13, 15 and
16 held as under :

"11. In order to find out whether the
application of the defendant under Order 6
2 All. A.K. Dubey & Anr. Vs. Exide Indus. Ltd. & Ors.
383
Rule 17 for amendment of written statement
is bona fide and sustainable at this stage or
not, it is useful to refer to the relevant
provisions of CPC. Order 6 Rule 17 reads
thus:

"17.Amendment of pleadings.--
The court may at any stage of the
proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleading in such manner and on
such terms as may be just, and all such
amendments shall be made as may be
necessary for the purpose of determining
the real questions in controversy between
the parties:

Provided that no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless the Court comes to
the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of
trial."

This Rule was omitted by the
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act,
1999.
However,
before
the
enforcement
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, the
original rule was substituted and restored
with an additional proviso. The proviso
limits the power to allow amendment
after the commencement of trial but
grants discretion to the court to allow
amendment if it feels that the party could
not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial in spite of due
diligence. It is true that the power to
allow amendment should be liberally
exercised. The liberal principles which
guide the exercise of discretion in
allowing
the
amendment
are
that
multiplicity of proceedings should be
avoided, that amendments which do not
totally alter the character of an action
should be granted, while care should be
taken to see that injustice and prejudice
of an irremediable character are not
inflicted upon the opposite party under
pretence of amendment.

12. With a view to shorten the
litigation and speed up the trial of cases
Rule 17 was omitted by amending Act 46
of 1999. This Rule had been on the
statute for ages and there was hardly a
suit or proceeding where this provision
had not been used. That was the reason it
evoked much controversy leading to
protest all over the country. Thereafter,
the Rule was restored in its original form
by amending Act 22 of 2002 with a rider
in the shape of the proviso limiting the
power of amendment to some extent. The
new
proviso
lays
down
that
no
application for amendment shall be
allowed after the commencement of trial,
unless the court comes to the conclusion
that in spite of due diligence the party
could not have raised the matter before
the commencement of trial. But whether a
party has acted with due diligence or not
would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. This would,
to some extent, limit the scope of
amendment to pleadings, but would still
vest enough powers in courts to deal with
the unforeseen situations whenever they
arise.

13. The entire object of the said
amendment is to stall filing of applications
for amending a pleading subsequent to the
commencement of trial, to avoid surprises
and the parties had sufficient knowledge of
the other's case. It also helps in checking
the delays in filing the applications. Once,
the trial commences on the known pleas, it
will be very difficult for any side to
reconcile. In spite of the same, an exception
is made in the newly inserted proviso where
it is shown that in spite of due diligence, he
could not raise a plea, it is for the court to
consider the same. Therefore, it is not a
complete bar nor shuts out entertaining of
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any later application. As stated earlier, the
reason for adding proviso is to curtail
delay and expedite hearing of cases.

.......

15. As discussed above, though first
part of Rule 17 makes it clear that
amendment of pleadings is permitted at any
stage of the proceeding, the proviso
imposes certain restrictions. It makes it
clear that after the commencement of trial,
no application for amendment shall be
allowed. However, if it is established that
in spite of "due diligence" the party could
not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial depending on the
circumstances, the court is free to order
such application.

16. The words "due diligence" have
not been defined in the Code. According
to Oxford Dictionary (Edn. 2006), the word
"diligence" means careful and persistent
application or effort. "Diligent" means
careful and steady in application to one's
work and duties, showing care and effort.
As per Black's Law Dictionary (18th Edn.),
"diligence" means a continual effort to
accomplish something, care; caution; the
attention and care required from a person
in a given situation. "Due diligence" means
the diligence reasonably expected from,
and ordinarily exercised by a person who
seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to
discharge an obligation. According to
Words and Phrases by Drain-Dyspnea
(Permanent Edn. 13-A) "due diligence", in
law, means doing everything reasonable,
not everything possible. "Due diligence"
means reasonable diligence; it means such
diligence as a prudent man would exercise
in the conduct of his own affairs."

16.

Similarly,
in
Rajkumar
Guruwara (dead) through LRs vs.
S.K.Sarwagi
and
Company
Private
Limited and another (2008) 14 SCC 364
had considered the scope of amendment
post commencement of trial. Relevant
paras 12 and 13 of the judgment are
extracted hereas under :

"12. In order to consider whether the
appellant-plaintiff has made out a case for
amendment of his plaint, it is useful to refer
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which reads as
under:

"17. Amendment of pleadings.--
The court may at any stage of the
proceedings allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings in such manner and
on such terms as may be just, and all such
amendments shall be made as may be
necessary for the purpose of determining
the real questions in controversy between
the parties:

Provided that no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the trial
has commenced, unless the court comes to
the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised
the matter before the commencement of
trial."

The first part of the rule makes it
abundantly clear that at any stage of the
proceedings, parties are free to alter or
amend their pleadings as may be necessary
for the purpose of determining the real
questions in controversy. However, this
Rule is subject to proviso appended therein.
The
said
Rule
with
proviso
again
substituted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect
from 1-7-2002 makes it clear that after the
commencement of the trial, no application
for amendment shall be allowed. However,
if the parties to the proceedings are able to
satisfy the court that in spite of due
diligence they could not raise the issue
before the commencement of trial and the
court is satisfied with their explanation,
amendment can be allowed even after
commencement of the trial.
2 All. A.K. Dubey & Anr. Vs. Exide Indus. Ltd. & Ors.
385

13. To put it clear, Order 6 Rule 17
CPC confers jurisdiction on the court to
allow either party to alter or amend his
pleadings at any stage of the proceedings
on such terms as may be just. Such
amendments seeking determination of the
real question of the controversy between
the parties shall be permitted to be made.
Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed
liberally than those which are sought to be
made after the commencement of the trial.
As rightly pointed out by the High Court in
the former case, the opposite party is not
prejudiced because he will have an
opportunity of meeting the amendment
sought to be made. In the latter case,
namely, after the commencement of trial,
particularly,
after
completion
of
the
evidence, the question of prejudice to the
opposite party may arise and in such event,
it is incumbent on the part of the court to
satisfy the conditions prescribed in the
proviso."

17. Thus, from the conjoint reading of
the amended provisions of Order VI, Rule
17 CPC and the law laid down by Apex
Court in the aforesaid cases, it is
abundantly clear that the Trial Court has to
be cautious while granting or rejecting an
amendment once the trial commences.
Though, it is a settled law that the Court
should be liberal in granting amendment so
as to avoid unnecessary complication and
multiplicity of litigations, but, once the trial
has commenced, the party making an
application for amendment, has to spell out
clearly the cause which had prevented it
from bringing the amendment prior to the
commencement of trial and also disclosing
the reason that despite due diligence it was
not in the notice of the party and only when
the said fact came into the knowledge of
the party claiming amendment, that such
application was filed.

18. Now coming to the case in hand,
it was on 10.12.2014 that the plaintiffrevisionist had filed a suit for damages
violating the terms of the lease agreement.
The plaintiff was fully aware that the lease
agreement had come to an end on
31.10.2014 and the remedy for evicting the
defendant from the premises let out was
already available to him at that time, which
he did not chose to claim.

19. In fact, the plaintiff only wanted
damages for the occupation of the property
by the defendant at the rate of Rs.2,000/-
per day, and had tried to enforce Clause
3(c) of the lease agreement. In the
meantime, the defendant in the present case
had filed suit No.1048 of 2015 before Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division),
Gorakhpur
claiming relief that the plaintiff herein may
permit the defendant to remove his
batteries and inverters stock, which was
still lying in the premises in dispute on
which the lock of the plaintiff was hanging.
It was only in the year 2018 that notice
under Section 106 of Act, 1882 was served
on 31.01.2018 and 26.02.2018 for arrears
of rent and ejectment from the premises in
dispute. In the meantime, issue Nos. 8 and
9 were decided by the Court below on
07.02.2017 and 03.03.2017 and the plaintiff
was already examined before the Court
below.

20. There is no whisper as to why
there was delay on the part of plaintiff in
filing
amendment
application
on
11.12.2018. From perusal of amendment
application, Paper No.59Ka/2, it is clear
that only amendment has been sought in the
plaint
claiming
arrears
of
rent
and
ejectment from property in question and no
compliance of proviso to Order VI, Rule 17
CPC has been made by plaintiff while
making such application. The plaintiff-
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisionist not only failed to adhere to the
proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC by
stating reason that despite due diligence the
fact pleaded was not within the knowledge
and could not be raised earlier but is also
barred by Order II, Rule 2 CPC as the suit
filed by the plaintiff did not include the
whole claim which the plaintiff was
entitled to make in respect of the cause of
action.

21. The present amendment is a fresh
cause of action and by the amendment, the
suit for damages cannot be amended.
Moreover, the relief, which is being
claimed
by
the
revisionist
through
amendment, was available to him when the
suit for damages was filed by him on
10.12.2014 as the lease agreement had
already expired on 31.10.2014 and the
plaintiff could have claimed the relief for
arrears of rent and ejectment, but he chose
to press the relief of damages on the basis
of Clause 3(c) of the lease agreement,
which had come to an end on 31.10.2014.

22. Thus, this Court finds that post
amendment in Order VI, Rule 17 CPC,
which was brought in the year 2002, the
party seeking amendment has to adhere to
the proviso while making an application in
case of commencement of trial. It is not
disputed to either of the parties that after
framing of issues in the year 2016, 2 issues
had already been decided and the oral
evidence of plaintiff has already concluded.
It is well settled that Section 17 of Act,
1887 provides that provisions of Code of
Civil Procedure is applicable in the matters
dealt by the Judge Small Cause Court under
the Act, 1887.

23. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case this Court finds
that the Trial Court had rightly rejected the
amendment application of the revisionist as
it does not disclose any reason for filing the
same post-commencement of trial, which is
against proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

24. No interference is therefore
warranted in the impugned order. Revision
fails and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A386
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 185 of 2020

Smt. Shakshi Agrawal ...Applicant
Versus
Sri Ashutosh Agrawal ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Shreya Gupta, Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal

A. Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 24
- Transfer of cases - Matrimonial disputes
- Divorce petition of the husband filed at
Gautam Budh Nagar - Two cases was
pending inter parties in Prayagraj - Held,
convenience of the wife is to be accorded
preference in the matter of venue of
proceeding in causes matrimonial - The
relevant factor about the wife not having
anyone to accompany her across a long
distance, is also a relevant consideration
in
ordering
transfer
-
High
Court
transferred the Divorce case from Gautam
Budh Nagar to Prayagraj. (Para 24)
Transfer application allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Manjula Singh Chouhan Vs Vishal Singh
Chouhan; 2019 (13) SCC 660