AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/State.
This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.02.2024 passed in M.C.A No.99 of 2024 arising out of Title Execution Case No.01 of 1997 by which the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC has been allowed by the learned court.
Mr. Niranjan Kumar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that earlier the defendants have moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No.8065 of 2012 for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2012 by way of filing a petition by the defendants for amendment was rejected. He submits that on 24.3.2022 a coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the said petition and held that no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties and direction was issued to file a petition under section 152 of the CPC. He submits that against the said order of the High Court, the petitioner herein has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10662 of 2022 which was dismissed by order dated 18.04.2023. He submits that thereafter the petition was allowed by the learned trial court. He further submits that under the wrong provision of law the said petition has been filed which has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that from the statement of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner it transpires that the petitioner is aggrieved only with regard to the provision of law.
In view of the above and considering that the High Court order dated 24.3.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.8065 of 2012 has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.10662 of 2022 and thereafter the petition has been filed and the learned court has been pleased to allow the same. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the provisions of law has wrongly been made. It is well settled that merely because of provision of law has wrongly been made in the petition, that cannot be a ground to reject the same and the Court is competent to pass appropriate order on the said petition. In view of the above, no case of interference is made out, and accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.