Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1545 (RAJ)

Laxman v. Premprakash

2009-07-06

G.K.TIWARI

body2009
TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (in short `the Act') against the order dated 26.7.2000 of Assistant Collector (Headquarter) Udaipur by which an application under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) was rejected. 2. The facts, in brief leading to the revision are that during pendency of a revenue suit between the rival parties before Assistant Collector (Headquarter) Udaipur, the plaintiffs-non-petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint which was allowed by the trial Court by his order dated 22.5.2000. The date given for presentation of the amendment plaint and the next date fixed for hearing was 5.7.2000. On this date presiding officer was not preset and amended plaint was also not presented. Thereafter on next date of hearing 26.7.2000 the petitioners-defendants put up an application under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. for not permitting amendment of the plaint after expiration of the prescribed period of 14 days from the date of allowing amendment. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 26.7.2000 dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. aggrieved against which this revision is filed. 3. This revision petition was filed on 9.8.2000; ever since it has been pending at the stage of admission for almost nine years. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted written arguments in respect of this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended in his written arguments that the non-petitioners-plaintiffs were fully in knowledge of the order dated 22.5.2000 of Assistant Collector of allowing amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. as it stood prior to the amendment (Amendment Act of 2002) has provision of maximum fourteen days for submission of the amended plaint after allowing of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. But the non-petitioners plaintiffs deliberately violated this provision of the law and did not produce amended plaint within time; as such the application of the petitioners-defendants filed under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. should have been accepted by the Assistant Collector but he rejected the same erroneously and illegally by the impugned order which should be quashed. The learned counsel cited 2005 AIR (SC) 3708 in support of his contention. 6. The learned counsel cited 2005 AIR (SC) 3708 in support of his contention. 6. I have gone through the written arguments of the learned counsel, perused the impugned order and gone through record available on the file. 7. Perusal of the file of the trial Court shows that non-petitioner-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint before Assistant Collector who heard the arguments of the rival parties on 3.3.2000 and fixed 15.3.2000 for decision on the application but it could not be given. Subsequent dates fixed for decision were 15.3.2000, 27.3.2000 and 15.4.2000 but the decision on the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. could not be taken by the presiding officer. The order sheet of file of the trial court shows that on 15.4.2000, the next date of hearing was fixed on 10.5.2000 but on 10.5.2000 the file could not be put up in the court and as such it did not come up for hearing. After that the file came up for hearing on 22.5.2000 on which date Assistant Collector pronounced the order allowing the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. But the order sheet of 22.5.2000 of the file does not show presence of any of the party, as this date 22.5.2000 was fixed in absence of the parties to the suit; the actual prior notified date of hearing being 10.5.2000. On 22.5.2000, next date for further action and presentation of amended plaint was fixed on 5.7.2000 when presiding officer himself was absent and hearing was adjourned by the reader for 26.7.2000 - when the petitioners-defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for not permitting presentation of the amended plaint as stipulated period of fourteen days had expired. Perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court as discussed above, evidently, reveals that plaintiffs-non-petitioners did not have knowledge of the order dated 22.5.2000 of the trial Court by which the application for the amendment of the plaint was allowed. The order sheet of 22.5.2000 does not mark presence of the parties. The amendment plaint was put up on 24.7.2000. Only intervening date between 22.5.2000 and 26.7.2000 was 5.7.2000 when presiding officer himself could not hold the court. The order sheet of 22.5.2000 does not mark presence of the parties. The amendment plaint was put up on 24.7.2000. Only intervening date between 22.5.2000 and 26.7.2000 was 5.7.2000 when presiding officer himself could not hold the court. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs-non-petitioners deliberately violated the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. 8. Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. as it stood prior to amendment in C.P.C. (Amendment Act, 2000) is as follows:- "18. Failure to amend after order - If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court." Perusal of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the period for presentation of the amended plaint can be enlarged by the court particularly when the situation like this when the parties to the suit and the presiding officer themselves were not present on 22.5.2000 and 5.7.2000 respectively as is obvious from the order sheet of the file. The order of rejection of application under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. is fully legal and justified. It is held in 2005 AIR (SC) 3708 as stated by the learned counsel, that this period is extendable by the Court. Rejection of the application under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. presumes that trial Court had extended this period for submission of the amended plaint in view of the special circumstances of absence of rival parties and presiding officer on the preceding two crucial dates of hearing 22.5.2000 and 5.7.2000, respectively. 9. It is worthwhile to mention here that an order of rejection of an application filed under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. does not come within the category of a `case decided' as envisaged under Section 230 of the Act to qualify as a subject matter of the revision. The impugned order is just an interim order against which no revision is maintainable. 10. The impugned order is just an interim order against which no revision is maintainable. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is not maintainable as the trial Court has neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor committed any illegality nor done any material irregularity. 11. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed in limine. Pronounced.