Smt. Sanjeevani Rathore and Others vs Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-I, Nainital and Others

Hon''ble P.C. Verma, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Vashishtha Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.08.2003 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Nainital by which the amendment application of the Petitioner has been rejected.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in view of the proviso to Section 16 of the CPC the amendment sought to in the property situated at Bijnor was not per-mitted and the Defendants are interfering in the property situated at Bijnor.

The Proviso to Section 16 CPC clearly provides that such relief can be sought when only both the parties situ-ate in the jurisdiction of the court concerned. Here, the property situates in the district - Bijnor, it does not falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div). Nainital. Therefore, the application has rightly been rejected. The order impugned does not suffer from any miscarriage of justice. Article 227 of the constitution of India does not attract in the matter. The petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly.

However, order imposing the cost on the applicant is exorbitant and is set-aside.