Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 1374 (RAJ)

Janwari Lal v. Dhula Ram

1996-12-09

B.R.ARORA

body1996
Honble ARORA, J. – This miscellaneous application is directed against the order dated 5.7.1991 passed by the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, by which the learned Magistrate, refused to extend the time for taking the amended plaint on record. (2). Plaintiff-petitioners Janwari Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi filed a suit against respondent Dhula Ram in the Court of the Munsif, Nagaur. An application u/O. 6 R. 17 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint. The application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint was rejected by the learned Munsif. The plaintiffs preferred a revision petition before this Court, which was allowed and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint. (3). While allowing the revision petition and permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint, 14 days period was fixed by this Court for the presentation of the amended plaint before the trial Court. The amended plaint could not be filed within the prescribed period of 14 days and was filed on 5.11.1990 i.e., after the expiry of the period of 14 days. Alongwith the amended plaint, an application u/O. 6 R. 18 CPC was, also, filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for taking the amended plaint on record, but that application was dismissed by the learned trial Court by the order dated 19.7.1991. It is against this order that the plaintiff-petitioners have filed this appeal. (4). No body appears on behalf of the respondent inspite of the service. (5). The revision petition filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for amending the plaint was allowed by this Court and they were granted 14 days time to file the amended plaint. It has been stated in the application that the order dated 23.8.1990 was not conveyed to the plaintiff-petitioner by their counsel and they were not knowing about the condition of 14 days for filing the amended plaint, set-up by the Court. As soon as the petitioners received the copy of the order, they filed the amended plaint and at that time no objection was taken by the defendant regarding late presentation of the amended plaint. Since the order was not conveyed to the plaintiff-petitioners within the stipulated period of 14 days, they, therefore, could not file the amended plaint within the stipulated period and could file the amended plaint only after receipt of the certified copy of the order. Since the order was not conveyed to the plaintiff-petitioners within the stipulated period of 14 days, they, therefore, could not file the amended plaint within the stipulated period and could file the amended plaint only after receipt of the certified copy of the order. The amended plaint has already been taken on record on 1.2.1991 and defendant-respondent has not raised any objection. (6). In the facts and circumstances of the case, I, therefore, think it proper to allow the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioners and extend the time for filing the amended plaint upto 5.11.1990, i.e., the date on which the amended plaint was filed. (7). In the result, the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioners is allowed and the time for filing the amended plaint is extended upto 5.11.1990, or till the date on which it was filed.