Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 183 (RAJ)

Wholesale Upbhokta Bhandar v. Satish Chandra Jain

2014-01-13

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 appearing in person. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been rejected. 3. In a suit seeking eviction of the petitioner, after the issues were framed, an application was filed seeking amendment in the written statement to take a plea that the plaintiffs have neither filed any application before the Municipal Board nor any permission has been granted by the Municipal Board for reconstruction, for which the eviction was being sought. Further amendment was sought to plead that the plaintiffs have not filed any report regarding the dilapidated condition of the premises from an authorised Engineer. 4. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the plea sought to be incorporated in the written statement is not required to be pleaded and the petitioner is free to put questions in the cross-examinations and argue the same at the time of final arguments. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that though it is open for the petitioners to put the questions in the cross-examinations and argue the same at the time of final arguments, however, if the petitioners want to lead evidence on the said aspect, in absence of the pleadings, he may not be permitted to lead evidence. 6. The respondent No.2 supported the order impugned. 7. I have considered the submissions made. 8. Both the pleas sought to be raised by the petitioners are regarding absence of application and permission from the Municipal Board and report from the authorised Engineer, for which apparently, no negative evidence is required to be led / can be led by the petitioners. The trial court has rightly observed that the petitioners are free to put the questions in the cross examinations and argue the same at the time of final arguments. 9. No interference is called for in the order impugned. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. 10. The stay application is also dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******