Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 787 (MP)

Mahant Ramcharan Das v. Yajatradas

2001-10-31

A.K.GOHIL

body2001
ORDER 1. By this common order, Civil Revisions No. 275/2001, 276/2001 and 277/2001 are being decided. In all the three revisions the plaintiff-applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 22.2.2001, passed by the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Indore, in Regular Civil Suit No. 34-A/2000, whereby rejecting his three applications (two u/o 6 R. 17 of the CPC, for amendment in the plaint and one u/s 80 (2) of the CPC for dispensing with service of notice on the State Government). 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of all the aforesaid revisions are that one plaintiff's suit against the respondents for declaration and injunction is pending before the trial Court. In the suit the plaintiff has claimed ownership over the property belonging to Hansdas Math and his case is that the property of the Math has been described in the schedule, which is also part of the plaint. Initially the plaintiff has made State as formal party and has not claimed any relief against it, but, thereafter, the State has filed their effective written statement, challenging the case of the plaintiff and specifically denied the schedule of property and also the fact that the aforesaid property belongs to Hansdas Math. In nut shell the case of the State Government is that the aforesaid property belongs to one Ranchhod Mandir, which is a public temple. 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, which was being mainly contested by the respondent No.1 Yajatradas, the trial Court by order dated 14.11.1992 granted an injunction and also accepted right of respondent No. 1 of performing Puja and Archana. On 8.12.2000 the plaintiff-applicant filed two applications one u/o 6 R. 17 and S. 151 CPC, for amendment in the plaint and another u/s 80 (2) CPC, for dispensing with service of notice on the State. On 13.12.2000, he has also filed an application u/o 6 R. 17 and S. 151, CPC for amendment in the plaint. On 8.12.2000 the plaintiff-applicant filed two applications one u/o 6 R. 17 and S. 151 CPC, for amendment in the plaint and another u/s 80 (2) CPC, for dispensing with service of notice on the State. On 13.12.2000, he has also filed an application u/o 6 R. 17 and S. 151, CPC for amendment in the plaint. The contention of the plaintiff is that the order passed by the Collector on 20.7.1994 came to his knowledge on 20.7.2000, because the same is an exparte order, therefore, alongwith the pleadings he claimed amendment in the prayer clause also, seeking declaratory relief that the aforesaid order of the Collector dated 20.7.1994, by which the Collector allowed Yajatradas to function as Pujari and also manager of Ranch hod Mandir, be declared as null and void and for getting the relief against the respondent-State he has also filed another application under section 80 (2), CPC for dispensing with service of notice. Again, on 13.2.2000 by another application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, challenged another order of Collector, dated 12.9.2000, passed in appeal, confirming the order of SDO and also sought permission to amend the relief clause and declaration that the said order dated 12.9.2000 be also declared illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The trial Court has rejected all the three applications of the plaintiff-applicant by a common order against which the aforesaid three separate revisions have been preferred. 4. The submission of Shri Rege, learned counsel for the applicant is that the trial Court has wrongly and illegally rejected the amendment applications as also the application u/s 80 (2) of the CPC. His further submission is that the trial. Court has not considered the nature of the suit, which is for declaration and injunction. The trial Court has also not considered the written statement• filed by the respondent-State. Though, the State Government is a formal party, but effectively contesting the suit and has set-up their own claim in the property of the Math as well as in the property of Ranchhod temple, therefore, his forceful submission is that now the State Government is not a formal party in the suit. His further submission was that the Court below has also not considered the issues which have been framed for the disposal of the suit. His further submission was that the Court below has also not considered the issues which have been framed for the disposal of the suit. It was, then, submitted that the trial Court has already framed issues relating to res judicata, limitation, valuation, jurisdiction and also whether the suit property is a property of Hansdas Math or not? Learned counsel has cited a Full Bench decision of Punjab High Court, in which it has been held that a question of resjudicata can also be raised against a formal/proforma party. He also cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 1966 SC 997 , wherein it has been held that to avoid multiplicity of the suit amendment should not be refused and the plaintiff should not be compelled to file a separate suit. His further submission was that the amendments in question are based on subsequent events, by which the Collector is trying to claim the right in the disputed property and trying to claim the same, as public property and the temple is a public temple, for that he has passed the orders on 20.7.1994 and on 12.9.2000. He submitted that in the plaint it has been specifically pleaded that the property of Ranchhod temple is not separate, but is the property of the Math and, thus, the applications for amendment ought to have been allowed for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties finally by considering the same taking a liberal view. 5. In reply, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, jointly, is that the amendment is an after thought. The order passed by the trial Court, rejecting the aforesaid applications, being legal and justified, needs no interference by this Court. The amendment, which has been sought on the basis of the aforesaid two orders are barred by limitation. It has fresh cause of action. The property in question is not of Hansdas Math, but it is the property of Ranchhod temple, which is not in dispute in the present suit. The state has again reiterated the submission that the plaintiff has not sought any relief against the Government and no cause of action arose against the State Government and the trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and also considered the rival submissions of the parties. The state has again reiterated the submission that the plaintiff has not sought any relief against the Government and no cause of action arose against the State Government and the trial Court has rightly rejected the applications. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and also considered the rival submissions of the parties. The litigation between the applicant-plaintiff and respondent-defendant No. 1 is pending for the last so many years. The present suit itself is pending since 1990. The plaintiff is claiming the property of Ranchhod temple as the property of Hansdas Math. The defence of defendant No. 1 in nut shell is that he is entitled to be the Mahant of the Math and the respondent-defendant No. 1 was also allowed by the trial Court as well as in other proceedings by the Collector to work as Pujari for the Ranchhod temple. The Collector has passed order on 20.7.1994, on the basis of direction given in Misc. Petition No. 649/93, on 14.3.1994, by which it had been decided that respondent No. 1 Yajatradas will continue to perform Puja Archna of temple and also look after the management and the Collector shall remain the Manager of the property of the temple. 7. On perusal of order dated 12.9.2000, passed by the Collector, in appeal Case No. 4/90-91 it appears that in that case also it was disputed by the plaintiff-objector that the property of Ranchhod temple is not the Government property and thus the temple is also not the Government temple, but it is the property of Hansdas Math and the Government has no power to appoint a Pujari for the temple. By this order the Collector treated the appeal as abated, because appellant Mahant Ramcharandas being legal representative of the earlier Mahant, had not filed any application, within 90 days. 8. I have also gone through the order dated 14.11.1992, passed by the trial Court. While deciding the application for temporary injunction u/o 39 Rr. 1 and 2 CPC, the trial Court, in para 19, has already recorded a finding that the disputed property appears to be of the Math. Then, who should be the Mahant, whether plaintiff or respondent No.1, is a question to be finally decided by the trial Court. While deciding the application for temporary injunction u/o 39 Rr. 1 and 2 CPC, the trial Court, in para 19, has already recorded a finding that the disputed property appears to be of the Math. Then, who should be the Mahant, whether plaintiff or respondent No.1, is a question to be finally decided by the trial Court. According to me, as per the subject-matter of the plaint this question is also to be decided by the trial Court, whether the property of Ranchhod temple is the property of Math or not? The State has already entered into the dispute. It had already pleaded that the property of Ranchhod temple is separate than the property of the Math. By this injunction order dated 14.11.1992, the trial Court has already granted right of performing Puja Archana in the temple to respondent No.1 Ramchandradas and has also granted an injunction to the effect that he will only perform Puja Archana and will not interfere in the management of the property of the Math and will also not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. It is also not in dispute before me that at that time the State was a formal party and no relief was sought against the State. Now, since the Collector and other officers of the State Government stating the property of the temple as a public property and claiming that this is a public property and the Collector is the Manager of the same and for that some orders have already been passed, therefore, to avoid multiplicity of the suit between the parties the trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff. The trial Court rejected the applications only on the ground that in the suit the State is a formal party and if the amendment is allowed it will change the nature of suit and this amendment will raise two questions that there is dispute between the plaintiff and the State about the property of Ranchhod temple and dispute with defendant No. 1 about the Mahantship, therefore, the Court came to the conclusion that the nature of present suit is quite different with the nature of the proposed amendment and rejected the applications. 9. 9. It is true that initially the plaintiff has not sought any relief against the State and the State was made as formal party in the suit, but in the Written Statements the State had already taken a stand that the Collector is the Manager of the property of Ranchhod temple, which is a public temple and respondent No.1 is its Pujari and the plaintiff has no right to challenge the aforesaid orders. In view of the Written Statements filed by the State the question about the property of Math as also about the property of Ranchhod temple are inter-mixed in the suit, therefore, with a view to avoid multiplicity of the suit, if amendment is allowed, this will not change the nature of the suit but help the parties to finally adjudicate the dispute. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Rege drew my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1966 SC 997 , wherein it has been held that: "as the object of the rule for allowing amendments to the plaint was to avoid multiplicity of suits, this was a proper case in which the Court should allow the plaint to be amended; otherwise if the amendments were refused the plaintiff would have to bring another suit." 11. Recently, the Supreme Court, in a case of Raghi Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and others [2001 AIR SCW 342], after referring the various judgments in Charan Das v. Amir Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50], L.J Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Company [ 1957 SCR 438 = AIR 1957 SC 357 ], Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [ (1974) 2 SCC 393 = AIR 1974 SC 1126 ], M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram [ (1978)2 SCC 91 = AIR 1978 SC 84] and various other authorities, in B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai [(1999) 10 JT (SC) 61 = 2000 AIR SCW 43 = AIR 2000 SC 614 ], has held as under: "The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17, CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should .not adopt hyper technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation." If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8 (a) to (f) of the plaint which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in these circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for." 12. In the present suit the plaintiff is seeking a declaration against one party regarding the property of Math, which includes the property of Ranchhod temple and the State is also a party and in reply the State has already taken a defence that the temple properly is not the property of the Math and the Court had already framed issues on that point, then, in such facts and circumstances of the case it would be more proper that the inter-mixed questions should also be decided and the present applications for amendment be allowed, so that the entire dispute between the parties may be adjudicated finally. 13. In AIR 1956 Punjab 129 (Full Bench), it has been held that a question of resjudicata can also be raised against the formal/proforma party. 13. In AIR 1956 Punjab 129 (Full Bench), it has been held that a question of resjudicata can also be raised against the formal/proforma party. When the State has already set up its defence that the property of the Math is also the property of Ranchhod temple and the trial Court has already framed issues, the amendment cannot be rejected solely on the ground that it will change the nature of suit and on the basis of new cause of action no amendment in the suit can be allowed, carries no weight. Looking to the relief of declaration in the existing suit the plaintiff has not only claimed Mahantship in the property, but also claiming his right, title and possession in the property of the Math. Therefore, according to me, the trial Court committed an illegality in rejecting the amendment applications and thereby also an application u/s 80 (2), CPC when relief is being sought against the State by the proposed amendment, obviously such an exemption would be necessary. 14. Consequently, all the three revisions are hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the two amendment applications as also application u/s 80 (2), CPC are hereby allowed, on payment of cost Rs. 500/- on each of the applications by the applicant. However, liberty is granted to the defendant to file consequential amendment in the Written Statement and with a direction that the trial Court shall frame necessary issues on all the objections, which shall be taken by the respondents in the Written Statement including one on the question of validity of notice u/s 80, CPC and, thereafter, decide the suit in accordance with law. 15. Retain this order in the record of Civil Revision No. 275 of 2001 and place its copy each in the record of connected civil revisions as particularised above.