Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 987 (RAJ)

Makkhan Lal v. Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar

2010-05-06

PRAKASH TATIA

body2010
Hon'ble TATIA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the rent tribunal dated 19.5.2009 by which the petitioner's application for amendment in the written statement was rejected. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the tribunal itself by order dated 14.11.2006 permitted the petitioner to produce the documents and they were taken on record. The petitioner only sought amendment to incorporate the necessary pleadings to show that the landlord has another premises wherein the landlord is running his business. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court (by me) in the case of Naveen Kumar & Ors vs. Mahaveer Prasad & Ors reported in 2009 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 394 held that when application for taking the documents on record is allowed then if plaintiff seeks amendment in in plaint to incorporate facts relating to documents, such amendment should be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon yet another judgment of this court delivered in the case of Sant lal vs. Rent Tribunal & Ors (SBCWP No.4879/2007, decided on 30.5.2008) and according to learned counsel for the petitioner the delay cannot come in the way of the petitioner when the plea taken is based on documents. 4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 14th Nov., 2006 as well as the impugned order dated 19.5.2009. It is clear from the order dated 14th Nov., 2006 that the petitioner came in possession of the documents before 14th Nov., 2006 and produced in court and obtained the order so as to take on record the documents in question obviously for the purpose of proving those documents in his evidence then the petitioner chose to prove those documents by taking time for his evidence and when last opportunity is granted to the petitioner then petitioner submitted this application for amendment in the written statement on 3.10.2008 i.e., almost after 2 years from the date when petitioner was permitted to produce the documents. There is no explanation that why the petitioner did not submit the application for amendment if no simultaneous application for taking on record the document was filed then within reasonable period so as to take the plea. It appears that the petitioner deliberately did not choose to file the application and now the petitioner wants to amend the written statement. There is no explanation that why the petitioner did not submit the application for amendment if no simultaneous application for taking on record the document was filed then within reasonable period so as to take the plea. It appears that the petitioner deliberately did not choose to file the application and now the petitioner wants to amend the written statement. Since the documents have already come on record and the petitioner can certainly prove those documents in accordance with law and the application which has been filed for amendment of the written statement is after gross delay and without any diligence, therefore, the proposition laid down in the judgments referred above cannot be applied. It is true that once the documents are taken on record and if necessary then the pleading are required to be incorporated in relation to the documents, which is found relevant for the purpose of deciding any issue, but that does not give any liberty to the party to sit over the right so as to take the benefit only for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. After the amendment in the CPC even if it is permissible for courts to allow amendments liberally even then some restriction are required to be there when the parties bonafides are seriously doubtful. 5. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.