Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 709 (RAJ)

Kanhaiya Lal v. Smt. Sushila Devi

2014-03-13

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 20/2/2014 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambharlake Camp, Dudu, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), in Civil Suit No.6/86, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioners seeking amendment in the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. 2. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment was proposed in view of the order dated 30/04/2013 passed by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.974/2002, by which the possession of the suit property was directed to be handed over to the Receiver, and that for the purpose of passing effective decree in the suit, the said amendment was proposed. According to him, the Receiver is already a party defendant No.9 in the suit, and the plaintiffs had already prayed for seeking possession from the said Receiver, as he was in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit, however, the plaintiffs-petitioners amended the plaint as during the pendency of the suit, the possession of the property was handed over to the other defendants. According to him, now since in view of the order passed by the High Court, the said defendant-Receiver No.9 is in possession, the amendment was sought for. 3. However, the learned counsel Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra for the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 10 & 11 appearing by way of caveat, has submitted that the suit is at the stage of final hearing, and the petitioners-plaintiffs are interested in prolonging the said proceedings. He also submitted that the Trial Court having rightly dismissed the application for amendment, this Court should not interfere with the same. 4. In the instant case, it appears that the proposed amendment was sought by the petitioners-plaintiffs in view of the order passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.974/2002, which reads as under:- "For the reasons given in the order of admission passed today, operation of impugned orders dated 13.12.95 and 6.8.2002 shall remain stayed. The land in question shall remain in possession of the Receiver till disposal of the Misc. Petition or civil suit pending between the parties, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the stay application is disposed of." 5. It appears that the said Misc. The land in question shall remain in possession of the Receiver till disposal of the Misc. Petition or civil suit pending between the parties, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the stay application is disposed of." 5. It appears that the said Misc. Petition had arisen out of the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. It is needless to say that the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. are of summary nature. As per the said order, the land in question was directed to be continued to remain in possession of the Receiver only till the disposal of the Misc. Petition or the Civil Suit pending between the parties, whichever is earlier. 6. Under the circumstances, the said possession with the Receiver would be only till the pendency of the suit or the pendency of the Misc. Petition, whichever is earlier. It is needless to say that such possession would be subject to the result of the Civil Suit pending between the parties, and the party, who succeeds in the suit, shall be entitled to get the possession. 7. In that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that there was no need for the petitioners-plaintiffs to amend the plaint, as sought for. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court being just and proper, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******