1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENTJURISDICTION
R.P.(C)No.751/2019inC.A.No.8242/2009
ANIRUDHKUMARSAHU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JHARKHANDSTATEHOUSINGBOARDANDORS.
Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. This review petition is filed
assailing the judgment dated 9 th
October 2018
wherebytheappealfiledby
theJharkhandStateHousingBoardwasallowed
by setting asidethejudgment anddecree
dated26 th
August,2004 passedby the High Court affirming the
concurrent findings of the Courts below. While allowingtheappealthisCourthasdirected to maintain statusquo for a period
of three months and to avail the remedy available under law,if so advised.
2. This Court has
allowed the appeal onthegroundthatthough the plaintiff has
sought the relief of injunction,
the courts below treating it as a suit for
declaration and declared thetitle of theplaintiff bydecreeing
thesuits. Now
the review petition is filed ontheground that suitis for declaration of title but
not for injunction and sought for the review of thejudgment.Insupport ofthe
same,hefiledapplication under Order
6 Rule17filed beforethecourtbelow
dated 11.02.1998 and order dated
29.04.1998 passed by the trial court
allowingtheamendment.
3. We have gone through these two
documents, the order impugned and the
grounds raised in support of the
review petition. First both the documents
filed by the petitioner will not
come to his rescue for the reason, the
application dated 11.02.1998 is
only an application to amend the plaint but
2
not the amended plaint. Though
the court passed order dated 29.04.1998
allowingtheamendment,unlesstheplaint is amended and filed it cannot be
takenintoconsideration.
4. Order 6 Rule 18 of CPC deals
with failure to amend after the application for
amendmentisallowedbythecourt.
Aspertheprovisionpartyhastoamend
the plaint within the time
prescribed in the order and if no time limit is
prescribed then within 14daysfromthedate of theorder.
Theplaintiffshall
notbepermittedtoamend after14days or time fixedbythe court as thecase
maybe,unless the time is extended by the court.
5. This court while allowing the
appeal had taken into consideration the
submission of the review petitioner
that the suit is for bare injunction, the
counterfiledbyhimandtheothermaterialplacedbeforethiscourtandcame
tothejustconclusionthatthesuitisformereinjunction.
6. We are of the considered
opinion that no grounds are made out seeking
indulgenceofthiscourttoreviewthejudgmentanddecreedated09.10.2018.
Accordinglyreviewpetitionisdismissed.
.....................J
(N.V.RAMANA)
................................................J
(MOHANM.SHANTANAGOUDAR)
NEWDELHI;
27THMARCH,2019.
3
ITEMNO.1001SECTIONXVII
SUPREMECOURTOFINDIA
RECORDOFPROCEEDINGS
R.P.(C)No.751/2019inC.A.No.8242/2009
ANIRUDHKUMARSAHUPetitioner(s)
VERSUS
JHARKHANDSTATEHOUSINGBOARDANDORS.Respondent(s)
Date:27032019Thispetitionwascirculatedtoday.
CORAM:
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEN.V.RAMANA
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEMOHANM.SHANTANAGOUDAR
ByCirculation
UPONperusingpaperstheCourtmadethefollowing
ORDER
TheReviewPetitionisdismissedintermsofthesignedorder.
(VISHALANAND)(RAJRANINEGI)
COURTMASTER(SH)ASSISTANTREGISTRAR
(SignedOrderisplacedonthefile)
4
