Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 256 (RAJ)

Mukut Bihari S/o Pachoram Chijara v. Naval Kishore Sharma S/o Kalyan Prasad Sharma

2001-02-14

J.C.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 3.12.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 252/96 whereby the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC filed by plaintiff-respondents has been allowed. 2. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the State of Rajasthan; Municipality Sanganer and the petitioners defendant No. 3 to 5 alleging therein that the defendants in collusion with officer of Municipality Sanganer were encroaching upon the vacant plot of land. It is stated that open vacant plot of land could not be sold by the Nagar Palika Sanganer. The prayer in the suit was that the Municipality Sanganer be restrained by permanent injunction from selling or otherwise alienating the land to the defendant and Municipality Sanganer be directed to remove the alleged encroachment upon the open and vacant land. 3. After framing of the issues and leading of the evidence, the plaintiff moved the application u/ Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment on the ground that defendant No. 4 had moved the application u/ Order 13, Rule 2 CPC and placed on record certain pattas. It was alleged that said pittas had been issued on-7.2.1992 and registered with the Sub-Registrar, Sanganer on 13.2.1992. The plaintiff thought it proper to move application u/ Order 6, Rule 17 CPC by adding additional pars No. 13 in the suit seeking direction that the patta be also declared as nullity as against the plaintiff and corresponding prayer was also to be amended. The application was opposed. 4. The trial Court vide impugned order allowed the amendment as prayed. The trial Court had believed the submission of plaintiff that he had come to know about the pattas on 3.10.1997. After verifying the fact; had moved the application of amendment. The trial Court allowed the amendment in regard to the said pattas in question relates to same land for which injunction was being sought. 5. After hearing counsel for petitioner and going through the impugned order, in my opinion the trial Court had rightly allowed the application. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The revision petition has no merits.With the above observations, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision Rejected. *******