Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1256 (RAJ)

Gopal Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal

2018-05-11

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: "(a) Writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost; and (b) Impugned order (Annexure 9) passed by learned District Judge, Udaipur (Raj.) dated 11.08.2017 passed in Civil Case No.215/16 (Kanhaiya Lal v. Gopal Lal) may kindly be set aside; and application of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and purposed amendment may kindly be allowed to be incorporated in the reply. (c) during the pendency of this writ petition, further proceedings in the learned Tribunal may kindly be stayed. (e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners in the year 2002 for possession of the shops and demanded mesne profit for use and occupation on the premise that the plaintiff was the owner of the same land, which was purchased by him in the year 1976 from Municipal Council, Udaipur. 3. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners in the year 2002 for possession of the shops and demanded mesne profit for use and occupation on the premise that the plaintiff was the owner of the same land, which was purchased by him in the year 1976 from Municipal Council, Udaipur. 3. The bone of contention in this writ petition is the application under Order 6, Rule 7 CPC, by which, the petitioners have sought the following amendment: 12- fd oknh ls ftjg ds nkSjku uxj ifj"kn] mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ ls nLrkost dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi fnukad 19-7-2010 dks is'k dh xbZ FkhA oknh us ftl ithad`r foØ; i= fnukad 25-11-1975 ,ao 27-5-1976 ds vk/kkj ij izfroknhx.k ds fo:) okn is'k fd;k gS tks iw.kZr% xyr gSA okLrfodrk ;g gS fd oknh ds LoxhZ; firk txUuk/k th vxzoky tks izfroknh l[a;k 1 ls 3 ds nknkth gS] ds LokfeRo dk edku rRdkyhu okMZ ucaj 33 edku uacj 188 uyok;k pkSd] mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ dks uD'kk vuqlkj fuekZ.k djkus gsrq fnukad 12-12-1967 dks izkFkZuk i= uxj ifj"kn] mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ es is'k fd;k ftl ij uxj ifj"kn }kjk fu;ekuqlkj ekSdk eqvk;uk dh dk;Zokgh gqbZ] ipkZ ekSdk cuk;k x;k vkSj nLrkost lcwr izLrqr djus gsrq le; le; ij funsZ'k o lwpuk i= tkjh fd;s x;sA bl dk;Zokgh ds njfe;ku oknh ds LoxhZ; firk o izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 3 LoxhZ; nknk txUukFk th dh e`R;q gks tkus ls muds iq=ksa dUgS;k yky o 'kafryky dks uxj ifj"kn }kjk lwpuk i= tkjh fd;s x;s vkSj fnukad 30-5-1973 dks ?kj ds ckgj cuh pcqrfj;ksa ij voS/k fuekZ.k gVkus dk vkns'k uxj ifj"kn }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k ftlds fo:) 'kkafryky ,oa dUgS;kyky us vfrfjDr ftyk/kh'k] mn;iqj ¼jkt-½ ds ;gka vihy izLrqr dh tks fnukad 28-12-1973 dks Lohdkj gqbZ vkSj uxj ifj"kn dks voS/k fuekZ.k dk;Z dks fu;ekuqlkj jkf'k izkIr dj fu;eu fd;k tkos] ,slk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA mDr uxj fuxe dh lEiw.kZ i=koyh izfroknh l[a;k 1 ls 3 us U;k;ky; vki esa is'k dh gS ftls tkfgj gksrk gS fd okn of.kZr tk;nkn ekS:lh tk;nkn Fkh oknh ds ,dy LokfeRo dh ugha Fkh] oknh us LoxhZ; txUukFk th dks e`R;q mijkUr izfroknh l[a;k 1 ls 3 ds firk tks ekewyh i<+s fy[ks O;fDr Fks vkSj og d.MDVjh djrs Fks vkSj vDlj Vwj es jgrs FksA bl otg ls ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks uktk;t ykHk izkIr dj uxj fuxe esa pyh dk;Zokgh dk Kku izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 3 ds firk 'kkafryky ugha gksus fn;k vkSj cnfu;rhiw.kZ rjhds ls okn of.kZr tk;nkn vius uke ij vkoafVr djk yhA mDr vuqlkj oknh dh okn of.kZr tk;nkn ij fdlh izdkj dh gd fefYd;r ugha gS vkSj lu 1991 esa dqfy;k of.kZr tk;nkn dks l;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh tk;nkn ekurs gq, oknh ,ao LoxhZ; 'kkafryky th ds e/; ikfjokfjd le>kSrk gqvk vkSj okn of.kZr tk;nkn izfroknh l[a;k 1 ls 3 ds firk 'kkfrayky ds gd o fgLls esa vkbZ FkhA ikfjokfjd le>kSrk Hkh ;|fi fyf[kr esa fy[kk x;k vkSj ,d uD'kk Hkh ewfrZc fd;k x;k ftl ij lHkh ifjokj ds lnL;ksa us vius gLrk{kj fd;s Fks mDr vuqlkj okn of.kZr tk;nkn izfroknh l[a;k 1 ls 3 dks vius firk dh e`R;q ds mijkar fojklr esa izkIr gqbZ Fkh vkSj oknh dh okn of.kZr tk;nkn esa dksbZ gd fefYd;u u Fkh u gS vkSj oknh cgSfl;r oknh okn of.kZr tk;nkn dk dCtk izfroknh l[a;k 1 ls 3@izfroknhx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS vkSj cgSfl;r ekfyd izfrokfnd l[a;k 1 ls 3 us okn of.kZr tk;nkn izfroknh l[a;k 4 dks jgu fcy dCtk dh gS ftls Hkh oknh csn[ky djkus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gS vkSj u fdlh izdkj dk gtkZuk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSA 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that at any stage of adjudication, the amendment should have been permitted by the learned court below. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has however, stated that the amendment sought for was arising out of the documents admittedly, received by the petitioners in the year 2010 and the application seeking amendment has been preferred after 7 years, which is much after the expiry of the limitation period in respect thereof. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that had it been a suit, other than for possession, the situation would have been different but in the present suit, such an amendment cannot be permitted. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners had the certified copies and the complete information in 2010 which they are now seeking by way of amendment and thus, after 7 years when the limitation had already expired for seeking such relief, the petitioners cannot be permitted to seek such amendment. 7. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.