Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2436 (RAJ)

Chandra Shekhar Sharma v. Gulab Giri

2017-11-06

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 08.09.2017 whereby the petitioner-defendant's (hereinafter 'defendant') application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement to the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. The defendant sought amendment to the written statement stating that subsequent to the filing of the suit for eviction an application had been moved by the Atmateshwar Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Pushkar through its trustee Sh. Bhanwar Giri under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1959') for the inclusion of the suit property as a part of the trust property. It was submitted that this subsequent event be allowed to be brought on record in the defendant's written statement as it had a bearing on the defence to the eviction suit. The Trial Court vide its order dated 08.09.2017 has noted that in his written statement the defence of the suit property being the property of the Atmateshwar Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Pushkar (public trust) had already been taken by the defendant and hence the amendment sought was superfluous as also unwarranted and the application appeared to have been filed only with the intent of delaying the trial of the suit. It also held that the amendment sought therefore was not necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating the issues in the suit. Hence the application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. 3. Mr. Pradeep Chaudhary counsel for the defendant submitted that though it was stated in the written statement that the defendant-tenant had landlord tenant relationship not with the plaintiff but with the Atmateshwar Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Pushkar the application filed by the trust before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 specifically claiming the tenanted property to be included as trust property was a subsequent event of relevance to the defendant tenant's defence which required to be brought on record for it would only be subsequent to the amendment to the written statement being allowed and requisite averments brought on record that evidence in regard thereto could be laid in court. 4. 4. I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 08.09.2017 is well considered and sets out good reason for dismissal of the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC by the Trial Court inasmuch as the defendant had already taken the defence of the tenanted property belonging to the Atmateshwar Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Pushkar and his being the trust's not the plaintiff's tenant. The Trial Court in the circumstances rightly held that the amendment to the written statement sought was superfluous and not necessary for the complete and effective determination of the issue/s before it. It needs reiteration that an order of the trial court on an application for amendment of pleadings is a discretionary order. And it is well settled that where a discretionary order passed by the Trial Court is neither vitiated for reason of an incorrect application of a legal principle nor capricious, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. 5. Mr. Pradeep Chaudhary, counsel for the defendant then submitted that the Court clarify that the defendant would be free to lead in evidence the factum of the application under 23 of the Act of 1959 moved by the Atmateshwar Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Pushkar (public trust) for inclusion of the tenanted shop as the property of the public trust. I am afraid that permission sought need not be granted as the question of defence evidence to be laid before the Trial Court is premature and quite extraneous to the issue agitated in this petition. And in any event it is trite that a party to a litigation is free to bring all evidence/s in support the issues struck on the pleadings in a case. 6. The petition stands dismissed.