Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2550 (RAJ)

Mani Ram v. Kaniyalal

2005-09-22

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 212.2004 by which the trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and also sought decree for prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner from evicting him form the land in question. It is further submitted that the plaintiff , after the closure of evidence of both the parties and after inordinate delay, submitted the amendment application seeking a prayer for possession also in the suit. 4. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner will be deprived from raising objection against the plea taken by the plaintiff as the petitioners evidence has already been closed by the trial Court and the petitioner will not get any opportunity to meet with the allegations levelled by the plaintiff . 5. It appears from the facts mentioned in the amendment application that the plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of contract with the plea that the possession was already delivered to him but in the year 1999, he was dispossessed from the land in dispute and a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and in criminal case, the petitioner was convicted under Section 447, IPC. The plaintiff submitted in the application that he took back possession of the land in dispute but in the month of July, 2003 only, the petitioner dispossessed the plaintiff from the land in dispute. 6. In view of the fact that in a suit for specific performance of contract, on proving the case, the plaintiff can get decree for possession of the land in question and in the facts of the case, it appears that the plaintiff s case is that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, if the Court below permitted amendment, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition, having no merit, is hereby dismissed.