Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1074 (RAJ)

Prem Prakash v. Ashok Kumar Anr

2013-05-24

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is preferred against the order dated 12.3.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ravatsar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court') whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have preferred a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners while claiming that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondents in respect of the residential house situated at Ward No. 6 of Town Rawatsar. In the said suit preferred by the respondents, written statement was preferred on behalf of petitioners and the claim of the respondents was denied. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues have been framed by the trial Court and the evidence of the plaintiff has also been completed and the matter is at the stage of evidence of the defendants. 3. At this stage, the petitioners have preferred an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement while claiming that they have purchased 110 square feet of land from one Ladu Ram through an agreement to sale dated 30.10.1984 and they want to place this fact on record. it was claimed that on account of mistake, the same document could not be produced earlier with the written statement. The said application preferred by the petitioner for amendment in the written statement was contested by the respondents. 4. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., reply of the respondents and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the parties rejected the said application while holding that the petitioners have filed application for amending the written statement with a great delay and has also failed to give any explanation regarding the said delay. Learned trial Court has also observed that while filing the written statement on 11.4.2007, the petitioners have concealed the existence of agreement to sale dated 30.10.1984 though they were very much aware about the said agreement to sale at the time of filing of the written statement and therefore, at this stage, the petitioners cannot be allowed to amend the written statement. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the written statement can be amended at any point of time and the learned trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application of the petitioner for amending the written statement solely on the ground of delay. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 13 SCC 89 , Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan . 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 8. Learned trial Court while rejecting the. application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., for amending the written statement has specifically observed that at the time of filing of the written statement on 11.4.2007, the petitioner have concealed the factum of existence of alleged agreement dated 30.10.1984 executed by one Ladu Ram. it is also observed by the learned trial Court that in the application for amending the written statement, the petitioners have contended that due to loss of memory they have failed to mention about the same in the written statement. The learned trial Court has observed that it cannot be believed that the existence of agreement to sale dated 30.10.1984 was not in the knowledge of the petitioners at the time of filing of the written statement and the learned trial Court further observed that at every stage of the suit, the petitioners have participated actively and the evidence of the plaintiff has already been completed and if at this stage, this application for amending the written statement will be allowed, then the nature of the suit will also be changed and the rights of the parties will also be effected. 9. 9. This Court is of the opinion that when the existence of the agreement to sale dated 30.10.1984 was very much within the knowledge of the petitioners at the time of filing of written statement, the petitioners should have mentioned this fact in the written statement and looking to the fact that the petitioners have actively participated at every stage of the suit, the action of the petitioners of moving application for amending the written statement at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and the matter is fixed for evidence of the petitioners, is not bona fide and the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Sajjan Kumar's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to the petitioners as in that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint wherein only the measurement of the suit property has not been given in the plaint due to oversight. The facts of the present case are altogether different and therefore, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is not application in the facts of the present case. 11. view of the above discussions, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******