Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1246 (RAJ)

Ramnivas v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer

2014-05-29

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2014 passed by the SDO, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer whereby the SDO has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and has declined to permit him to amend the written statement after sixteen long years. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 28.4.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby the learned Board has upheld the order dated 4.2.2014 and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Mr. Prahlad Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, once the plaint was permitted to be amended, and subsequent development of the case were permitted to be taken on record, the petitioner-defendant has a right to amend his written statement. In order to exercise this right, the petitioner, in fact, filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. Hence, ipso facto the said application should have been allowed by the learned trial court. Relying on the cases of Pankaja & Anr. v. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. [ AIR 2004 SC 4102 ] and Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. & Ors. [ AIR 2007 SC 2511 ] , the learned counsel has pleaded that even if the amendment sought was delayed, even then it should have been allowed. 3. Secondly, relying on the case of Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy & Ors. [JT 2001 (7) SC 112] , the learned counsel has pleaded that the rules governing pleadings are incorporated in order to advance the interest of justice, and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, any amendment proposed by the petitioner should have been allowed as it would have advanced the interest of justice, and would have avoided multiplicity of litigation. 4. Lastly, the learned trial court has dismissed the application ostensibly on the ground of delay. Moreover, the learned Board has not given any reason for upholding the order passed by the learned trial court. Thus, both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside by this court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, has pleaded that merely because the plaint was permitted to be amended would not give an absolute right to the petitioner to amend the written statement. Thus, both the impugned orders deserve to be set aside by this court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. J.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, has pleaded that merely because the plaint was permitted to be amended would not give an absolute right to the petitioner to amend the written statement. According to the learned counsel, each case would have to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. 6. Secondly, the plaint was amended on 1.4.1999, and yet the present application for amendment was not filed till 6.1.2014, i.e. almost after a lapse of sixteen long years. During this period, even the rejoinder to the reply had been filed. The order permitting filing of rejoinder was challenged by the petitioner - a challenge dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Yet during all these years, the petitioner did not move any application wanting to amend the written statement. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles him from amending the written statement. Hence, the learned counsel has supported both the impugned orders. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 8. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the judgment of the Apex Court should not be read as provisions of law. Each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Before applying a ratio of a judgment upon a case, the court is required to see whether the factual matrix are similar, or identical or not? But the ratio decided by the Apex Court cannot be followed blindly without considering the factual matrix of the case. 9. In the present case, a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 4.2.2014 clearly reveals that according to the learned trial court, after filing of the original plaint, the petitioner had submitted his written statement on 28.4.1997. Between 1997 and 1999, Smt. Sadasukhi had expired. According to the respondent, she had left a Will; they claimed that they inherited the property in dispute through this Will. For this purpose, the plaint was amended on 1.4.1999. Despite the fact that a copy of the amended plaint was given to the petitioner, he did not immediately move any application for amending his written statement. Subsequently, even rejoinder to the written statement was filed. The permission to submit the rejoinder was granted by the learned trial court on 8.12.2003. For this purpose, the plaint was amended on 1.4.1999. Despite the fact that a copy of the amended plaint was given to the petitioner, he did not immediately move any application for amending his written statement. Subsequently, even rejoinder to the written statement was filed. The permission to submit the rejoinder was granted by the learned trial court on 8.12.2003. Although the petitioner had challenged the order dated 8.12.2003 before the learned Board, but even then, he did not move any application for amending the written statement. Thereafter the petitioner even moved an application under Order 6, Rule 16 CPC for striking out the pleadings. But even then, he did not file any application for amending the written statement. Since the application under Order 6, Rule 16 CPC was dismissed, the petitioner challenged the same before the Board of Revenue. But even then, he sat over the entire issue of wanting to amend the written statement. Having lost his fight at every step, after a lapse of sixteen years, the petitioner finally filed an application for amending the written statement. To say the least, the conduct of the petitioner is rather curious. Having come to know that the plaint has been amended in 1999, he did not move an application for amending the written statement till he lost at every stage of the case. 10. The case of Pankaja & Anr. (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the facts of the said case clearly reveal that the written statement was filed on 17.9.1994 wherein a contention was raised that a suit for injunction and possession is not maintainable until and unless a declaration of title is sought from the civil court. Therefore, on 27.7.2000, an application had been moved under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement. From the facts of the said case it is unclear as to what had expired between 1994 and 2000, and whether the parties had fought tooth and nail for taking on record the rejoinder and whether any application under Order 6, Rule 16 CPC was ever filed, which was ever rejected. From the facts of the said case it is unclear as to what had expired between 1994 and 2000, and whether the parties had fought tooth and nail for taking on record the rejoinder and whether any application under Order 6, Rule 16 CPC was ever filed, which was ever rejected. However, in the present case, the petitioner has been fighting tenaciously against the respondent-plaintiff and yet he does not take the basic step of wanting to amend his written statement till sixteen years and that, too, after facing defeat at every step. Therefore, the delay in the present case is a calculated risk taken by the petitioner. Hence, the delay could not be condoned and the application deserved to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. 11. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dondapati Narayana Reddy (supra), cannot be doubted that the rules governing pleadings are incorporated to advance the interest of justice, and to prevent multiplicity of litigation. However, it does not mean that the rules governing pleadings can be abused and application for amending the written statement can be filed after an inordinate and inexplicable delay of sixteen years. If the rules governing pleadings were permitted to be abused by a clever litigant, it would not only cause injustice to the opposite party, but would also create a judicial chaos in functioning of the court. Therefore, even the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted case does not support the case of the petitioner. 12. The learned trial court has also noticed the fact that the plaintiff had also submitted the death certificate of Smt. Sadasukhi and had also claimed in the amended plaint that he has a title to the property through her Will. Despite the fact that the amendment was made in 1999, till 6.1.2014 the petitioner has not even challenged the veracity and validity of the said Will. Yet he wants to amend the written statement. Therefore, the learned trial court was justified that the application seeking amendment was only a clever ploy to delay the proceedings. Undoubtedly, the learned trial court has given cogent and valid reasons which cannot be faulted. 13. Yet he wants to amend the written statement. Therefore, the learned trial court was justified that the application seeking amendment was only a clever ploy to delay the proceedings. Undoubtedly, the learned trial court has given cogent and valid reasons which cannot be faulted. 13. The learned Board has also noticed the fact that the case has been pending before the trial court since 1994, and the application for amendment in the written statement was filed in 2014. Therefore, even the Board was of the opinion that it is merely a subterfuge to prolong the proceedings. Considering the conduct of the petitioner from 1999 till 2014, the conclusion drawn by the learned Board cannot be questioned. 14. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. This petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******