Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 826 (RAJ)

Sushil Kumar v. LRs of Late Ranjana Ben

2011-04-26

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Though listed on an application filed under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, however, with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at this stage itself. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that in the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement, filed way back in the year 1996, the original plaintiff Smt. Ranjana Ben expired on 24.12.2006; and her legal representatives were ordered to be substituted as plaintiffs on 19.05.2008. Thereafter, on 21.07.2008, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code with the submissions that the requirement as stated in the plaint has come to an end as the original plaintiff has expired and the premises of her possession were lying vacant; and only one son of the plaintiff was residing at Mount Abu and other children have not come to Mount Abu at all. The defendant-petitioner prayed that such subsequent events particularly arising due to demise of the original plaintiff deserve to be taken on record and hence, he be allowed to amend the written statement. 3. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application by the impugned order dated 08.05.2009 with the cursory observation that only for the subsequent event of the death of the original plaintiff, the requirement does not come to an end. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner while assailing the order dated 08.05.2009 that the Trial Court has been in error in making observation on the merits of the amendment sought and in failing to consider that the amendment was requisite for just and proper determination of real questions between the parties. It is also submitted that the relevant facts concerning the subsequent events ought to have been allowed to be brought on record and the Trial Court has acted wholly illegally in rejecting the prayer for amendment. 4. It is also submitted that the relevant facts concerning the subsequent events ought to have been allowed to be brought on record and the Trial Court has acted wholly illegally in rejecting the prayer for amendment. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, though this Court is not inclined to consider interference in the order impugned to the extent the application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code has been disallowed but then, this Court is unable to approve the cursory observations made by the learned Trial Court at the given stage as if finally pronouncing that the requirement has not come to an end. 5. It appears that the matter has been fixed for final arguments in the Trial Court. It remains indisputable that the original plaintiff has expired. As to what is the effect of her demise on the requirement as stated can be considered by the learned Trial Court after taking the entire matter into the comprehension at the time of final hearing. As to whether the professed requirement is eclipsed altogether or not, ought to have been left for consideration, in the circumstances of the present case, at the time of final hearing and decision of the matter. In the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court is of opinion that interest of justice shall be served if the question of effect of demise of the original landlord is kept open to be considered by the Trial Court at the time of final hearing of the suit. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed but only to the extent that the impugned order dated 08.05.2009 is modified in the manner that though the application as moved by the petitioner under VI Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code shall stand dismissed but then, the other observations as made in the impugned order shall be treated as annulled at present; and the effect of the demise of the original landlord-plaintiff Ranjana Ben shall be considered by the Trial Court at the time of final hearing and decision of the suit. However, it is made clear that this Court has not pronounced on the merits of the case either way. No costs.