# The Sinha Development Trust & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 925
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-28
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No.9021 of 2024
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-sinha-development-trust-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52492
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

8 All. The Sinha Development Trust & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
925
(2024) 8 ILRA 925
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters U/A 227 No.9021 of 2024

The Sinha Development Trust & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Nipun Singh, Sumit Suri

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dharmendra
Singh
Chauhan,
C.S.C.,
Krishna Mohan Asthana

Civil Law- Petitioners filed Original Suit -
for
return
of
land
and
payment
of
compensation.- they have filed amendment
application on 17.1.2024- at the stage of
final hearing for formal amendment to
ensure the return of land and compensation
in favour of trust and not the private personApplication rejected on ground of delay and
that no due diligence proved- proviso of
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC inserted through
amendment in 2002- would not be applicable
to the suits, which are pending prior to the
date of amendment, - this cannot be ground
to reject the amendment application -
Impugned order quashed.

W.P allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

St. Bank of Hyderabad Vs Town Municipal
Council (2007) 1 SCC 765

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today
be taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for the
respondent no.1 and Sri D.S. Chauhan,
learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

3. Present petition has been filed for
setting aside the impugned order dated
9.2.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Civil Judge, S.D., New Court No.1,
Moradabad in Original Suit No. 288 of
1991.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that earlier petitioners have filed
Original Suit No. 288 of 1991 before the
trial Court for return of land and payment
of compensation. He next submitted that at
the stage of final hearing, they have filed
amendment application on 17.1.2024 for
formal amendment to ensure the return of
land and compensation in favour of trust
and not the private person, which was
rejected vide order dated 9.2.2024 on the
ground that it has been filed at very belated
stage. He further submitted that though the
due diligence of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC
inserted through amendment in 2002 has
not been referred to any of the order, but
the crux of impugned order is based upon
the lack of due diligence.

5. He firmly submitted that in light of
judgment of Apex Court in the case of
State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Town
Muncipal Council reported in (2007) 1
SCC 765, amended provision of Order 6
Rule 17 of CPC shall not be applicable to a
suit, which was instituted prior to which
pleadings have been exchanged.

6. He also pointed out that from the
proposed amendment application, nature of
suit would not be changed and in case suit
is
decreed,
land
or
compensation
whatsoever is the case, be vested in the
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
trust and not in the hands of ancestors of
R.A.N. Sinha, who has created the trust,
therefore, on both the grounds, impugned
order is bad and liable to be set aside.

7. Sri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel
for the respondent no.2 could not dispute
the legal as well as factual submissions so
raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

8. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

9. There is no dispute on the point
that Mr. R.A.N. Sinha has created the trust
in the year 1973. Now the trust is having
dispute with the respondent no.2 with
regard to excess land acquisition. After
amendment, in case suit is decreed either
land or compensation as the case may be
would be vested with the trust and not with
the individual persons. Therefore, intention
of filing of amendment is bonafide

10. I have perused the judgment of
State
Bank
of
Hyderabad
(Supra).
Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is
quoted hereinbelow:-

"8. In view of the said provision
there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that
the suit having beeing filed in the year
1988, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the
Code shall not apply.

9. The High Court relied upon the
said proviso and opined that having regard
thereto the plaintiff was obligated to
establish that in spite of due diligence it
could not have raised the matter before
commencement of the trial of the suit. The
High
Court
evidently
committed
an
illegality
in
relying
upon
the
said
provision."

11. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgment, it is apparently clear that proviso
of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC inserted
through amendment in 2002, would not be
applicable to the suits, which are pending
prior to the date of amendment, therefore,
this cannot be ground to reject the
amendment application.

12. Therefore, under such facts and
circumstances as well as law laid down by
the Apex Court, the impugned order dated
9.2.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Civil Judge, S.D., New Court No.1,
Moradabad is hereby quashed and petition
is allowed. Petitioners are directed to carry
out necessary amendment within two
weeks from today. Further, trial Court is
also directed to decide the suit in
accordance with law.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 926
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 2000751 of 2004

Rajan Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. R.K. Srivastava, Shailesh Kumar Singh,
Sharad Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anil K. Srivastava