Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9993-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 30 of 2025 Appellant :- Prabandh Samiti, Shri Chadrika Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya,through its President Ram Sunder Singh and Another Respondent :- Sri Chandrika Vidya Pracharini Sabha through Manager Tej Bahadur Singh and 4 others Counsel for Appellant :- H.G.S. Parihar, Sr. Adv., Sudeep Kumar, Shreshta Srivastava, Pradya Singh, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey, Radhika Varma Counsel for Respondent :- Hairdaya Narain Tiwari, Anand Kumar Singh (A.C.S.C.), Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 19.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 1002468 of 1997 whereby I.A. No. 12 of 2023 preferred by the respondents seeking amendment in the writ petition has been allowed. 2. The petition was filed in the year 1997 seeking to question the order dated 02.03.1996 passed by the Registrar and the order dated 09.09.1997 passed by Commissioner, filed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Prayer was also made seeking to quash the resolutions dated 13.02.1972 and 29.02.1972. 3. The writ petition was filed in the name of Society as petitioner no.1 and one Rama Shanker Tripathi as petitioner no.2. The status of Rama Shanker Tripathi was not indicated in the cause title. 4. During pendency of the writ petition, it appears that an objection was raised pertaining to the maintainability of the writ petition with reference to provisions of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Apparently, based on the said objection, an amendment application was filed inter alia seeking to amend the cause title of the petition with the submissions that during pendency of the petition, petitioner no.2-Rama Shanker Tripathi had died and claiming Tej Bahadur Singh as Manager of the Society. 5. The application was contested by the appellants on several grounds pertaining to its maintainability as well as the fact that Tej Bahadur Singh was not the Manager of the Society. 6. Learned Single Judge, by the order impugned dated 19.12.2024, after referring to the contentions raised and noticing the principles governing the amendment of pleadings, came to the following conclusion: "12. In the overall view of the matter, I am convinced that I should not disturb the proceedings under the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, this application for amendment is allowed." 7. Learned counsel for the appellants made vehement submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the application seeking amendment in the petition. Submissions have been made that petition, as filed, was not maintainable and was required to be dismissed and the amendment, which has been permitted, seeking to cure the defect could not have been permitted. Submissions were also made that the claim made pertaining to the status of Tej Bahadur Singh is disputed by the appellants and the fact that the amendment has been permitted, ratifies the claim of the said Tej Bahadur Singh as Manager of the Society, which cannot be permitted and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection pertaining to the maintainability of the present appeal. Submissions were made that the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is not maintainable. Reliance was sought to be placed on Madhukar Venkatesh Ullal Vs. Anita Hermy D'Souza and others : 2006 (2)MhLJ 483. 9. Further submissions were made that the respondents were seeking to only correct the cause title based on the fact that petitioner no.2 had died during the pendency of the writ petition and has brought in the cause title in tune with the present status which cannot be faulted and, therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal. 10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. So far as the maintainability of the special appeal is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. : (2018) 11 SCC 722, dealing with the aspect of the maintainability of a letters patent appeal, came to the conclusion that such an appeal would be maintainable. 12. In that view of the matter, the objection raised pertaining to the maintainability of the appeal apparently has no substance. 13. So far as the challenge laid to the amendment permitted by learned Single Judge is concerned, a perusal of the order passed by learned Single Judge reveals that the learned Single Judge, without going into the aspect pertaining to the status of Tej Bahadur Singh, simply for the purpose of not dismissing the petition for lack of indication made, has allowed the application. 14. The apprehension expressed by counsel for the appellants that by merely allowing the application seeking amendment, the status of Tej Bahadur Singh, which is seriously disputed on behalf the appellants, would be ratified, apparently has no substance. The challenge laid to the status of Tej Behadur Singh and his right to maintain the present proceedings can always be questioned by the appellants in response to the amendment granted, by filing counter to the amended writ petition and the said aspect would have to be decided by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition on merits. 15. So far as the grant of amendment by the learned Single Judge is concerned, in the circumstances of the case, subject to the above observations, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. 16. Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of. It is expected of learned Single Judge to hear and decide the matter with expedition. 17. The original record summoned, be sent back. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 RK/AHA (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench