Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed for setting aside the order passed by Additional District Judge, wherein the Court rejected an amendment application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking to incorporate certain new grounds, the Single Judge Bench of Neeraj Tiwari, J. while setting aside the impugned order, viewed that Dr. Amit Verma, Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, was not competent to write a judgment in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court deemed it necessary to direct that he be sent for a minimum of three months’ training at the Judicial Training and Research Institute, Lucknow.
Background
The respondent had earlier filed a for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, which was decreed against the petitioner by order dated 29-02-2024. Aggrieved by the said decree, the petitioner filed Revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 07-11-2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 227, which was allowed vide order dated 17-12-2024 and the matter was remanded for passing a fresh order. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner had filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to incorporate certain new grounds, which was rejected by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present petition was filed.
Analysis and Decision
From the perusal of the order dated 17-12-2024, the Court had noted that the Additional District Judge had passed the order without recording any findings. Accordingly, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the same Judge for passing a fresh and reasoned order.
The Court noted that the impugned order dated 01-03-2025, which is under challenge in the present petition, consists of a total of seven paragraphs followed by the operative portion. In all seven paragraphs, the Judge merely recorded the facts and arguments advanced by both parties. However, without recording any findings or applying judicial mind to the merits of the amendment application, the Judge summarily rejected the same in a brief, three-line order.
The Court highlighted that the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar has repeated the very same error that he had earlier committed while passing the order dated 07-11-2024.
Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 01-03-2025. The writ petition was allowed with the direction to the competent court to decide the matter afresh, strictly in accordance with law, within a maximum period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The court concerned was further directed not to grant any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, and in the event any adjournment was granted, detailed reasons were to be recorded in the order sheet.
Further, the Court directed the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to transfer the Revision to another equivalent and competent court, other than the court of Dr. Amit Verma, Additional District Judge, if he was still posted there.
From the perusal of the order dated 17-12-2024, as well as the impugned order dated 01-03-2025, the Court was of the firm view that Dr. Amit Verma, Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, was not competent to write a judgment in accordance with law. Therefore, it was deemed necessary that he be sent for training for a minimum period of three months at the Judicial Training and Research Institute, Lucknow.
The Registrar General of the High Court, Allahabad, was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice and obtain appropriate orders for sending him for such training.
A copy of this order was directed to be placed before the Registrar General of the High Court, Allahabad, for necessary compliance.
[Munni Devi v. Shashikala Pandey, Matters under Article 227 No. 3946 of 2025, decided on 22-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Petitioner: – Prakhar Tandon
Counsel for Respondent: – Shiv Kumar Yadav
