SANJAY BADONI vs PRADEEP CHOPRA Advocate - PIYUSH GARG — WPMS /1050/2024
Case under Under Article 227 of the Constituion of India Section 227. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.
CNR: UKHC010058552024
Filing Number
WPMS /2680/2024
Filing Date
23-04-2024
Registration No
WPMS /1050/2024
Registration Date
23-04-2024
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )
Sub-Category
AGAINST THE ORDER OF PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY RENT CONTROL ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANJAY BADONI
Adv. SIDDHARTHA SINGH,D S NEGI,D S NEGI, ,KSHITIJ SAH,D S NEGI
Respondent(s)
PRADEEP CHOPRA Advocate - PIYUSH GARG
SMT MEENA CHOPRA
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
ADMISSION MATTERS -25
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2024 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 | |
| 22-12-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 | |
| 10-12-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 | |
| 21-11-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 | |
| 24-11-2025 | ADMISSION MATTERS -25 |
Orders
Summary The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the writ petition and set aside the Revisional Court's order rejecting the tenant's amendment application to his written statement. The court held that the Revisional Court impermissibly examined the merits of the defence instead of applying settled liberal principles governing amendments to written statements under CPC Order VI Rule 17. Since the proposed amendment was clarificatory and alternative in nature, necessary for complete adjudication, and caused no irreparable prejudice, the amendment application was allowed, and the revision proceedings were remanded for continuation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the writ petition and set aside the Revisional Court's order rejecting the tenant's amendment application to his written statement. The court held that the Revisional Court impermissibly examined the merits of the defence instead of applying settled liberal principles governing amendments to written statements under CPC Order VI Rule 17. Since the proposed amendment was clarificatory and alternative in nature, necessary for complete adjudication, and caused no irreparable prejudice, the amendment application was allowed, and the revision proceedings were remanded for continuation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts