Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2044 (RAJ)

Rakesh Kumar v. Civil Judge, Ganganagar Raj

2018-10-05

DINESH MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar whereby the petitioner's application dated 28.10.2017 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment in the plaint has been rejected. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the precise facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 17.08.2001 in the year 2008. 3. The suit was at the stage of plaintiff's evidence since 09.01.2012, of course, after framing the issues, when the plaintiff filed the subject application dated 28.10.2017 seeking amendment in the suit by way of incorporating requisite pleadings for recovery of possession of the contentious shop. 4. 3. The suit was at the stage of plaintiff's evidence since 09.01.2012, of course, after framing the issues, when the plaintiff filed the subject application dated 28.10.2017 seeking amendment in the suit by way of incorporating requisite pleadings for recovery of possession of the contentious shop. 4. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Court below vide its order dated 09.11.2017 with the following observations:- ^^i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS i=koyh lu~ 2008 ls yafcr gS rFkk i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh tkfgj gqvk fd gLrxr izdj.k es tokc nkok is'k gksus ls iwoZ Hkh oknh }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuki= vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lhihlh dk fuLrkj.k fnukad 02-04-09 dks fd;k tk pqdk gSA rRi'pkr rudh;kr dk;e dh tkdj i=koyh fnukad 09-01-12 ls lk{; oknh gsrq fu;r gS ijarq 'kiFki= is'k gksus ds i'pkr ftjg lk{; oknh gsrq xokg fnukad 24-11-14 rd vuqifLFkr jgus ij U;k;ky; }kjk vafre volj bl fgnk;r ds lkFk fn;k fd vkbank xokg mifLFkr ugha jgus ij lk{; Lor% can le>h tkosxh vkSj i=koyh fnukad 05-01-15 gsrq fu;r Fkh ijarq oknh }kjk fnukad 05-01-15 dks ,d vU; izkFkZuki= vkns'k 14 fu;e 5 lhihlh dk is'k fd;k ftls foyEcdkjh ekurs gq, U;k;ky; }kjk 500@& :i;s dksLV ij [kkfjt fd;k rFkk iqu% vafre volj fn;k x;k ijUrq izkFkhZ@oknh us U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikyuk es 500@& :i, dh dksLV dh vnk;xh ugha dh rFkk oknh }kjk fnukad 02-02-2015 dks iqu% izkFkZuki= izLrqr dj fn;k ftls 2000@& :i;s dh dksLV ij fnukad 18-09-2017 dks vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k x;k ysfdu izkFkhZ@oknh }kjk 2000@& :Ik;s dksLV dh vnk;xh Hkh ugh dh rFkk oknh }kjk fnukad 02-02-2015 dks iqu% izkFkZuki= izLrqr dj fn;k ftls 2000@& :Ik;s dh dksLV ij fnukad 18-09-2017 dks vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k x;k ysfdu izkFkhZ@oknh }kjk 2000@& :i;s dksLV dh vnk;xh Hkh ugha dh o gLrxr izkFkZuki= fnukad 28-10-2017 dks izLrqr dj fn;kA bl izdkj i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ us gLrxr izdj.k esa ,d gh vk/kkj ij rhljh ckj izkFkZuki= izLrqr fd;k gS nks izkFkZuki=ks dks iwoZ esa Øe'k% 500] 2000 :I; dh dksLV ij [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA pwafd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk 5 o 10 o"kZ ls vf/kd iqjkus izdj.kks ds 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k ds Hkh funsZ'k gS vr% mDr leLr rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa es oknh@izkFkhZ dk mDr izkFkZuki= ek= foyEc dkfjr djus okyk izrhr gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@oknh dks mDr izkFkZuki= vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lhihlh 2000@& :i;s ¼nks gtkj :i;s½ dh dksLV ij vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ@oknh dks ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og vkxkeh is'kh ij vko';d :i ls iwoZ esa vf/kjksfir dksLV Øe'k% 500:i;s] 2000 :i;s rFkk bl vkns'k ds tfj;s vf/kjksfir dksLV 2000 :i;] dqy feykdj 4500@& :I;s dksLV dh jlhn ,-Mh-vkj esa dVokdj U;k;ky; esa is'k djsA mDr 4500 :i;s dksLV dh vnk;xh oknh dks izdj.k esa viuk vkxkeh i{k j[kus dh iwoZorhZ 'krZ gksxhA i=koyh okLrs is'k gksus jlhn ,-Mh-vkj o ftjg lk{; oknh fnukad 17-11-2017 dks is'k gksA^^ 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned passed by the Court below is per se illegal inasmuch as the Trial Court has rejected the petitioner's application on the grounds not germane for the decision of the application. The Trial Court was swayed or influenced by the fact that earlier two applications filed by the petitioner had been rejected. He clarified that earlier two applications filed by the petitioner were not for amendment of the pleadings and as such the order of the Court below is unsustainable in the eye of law. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 7. True it is, that the order impugned passed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law inasmuch as the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected for irrelevant considerations. 8. The mere fact that earlier application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other application seeking recalling of the order have been rejected, cannot preclude the petitioner to file an application seeking amendment in the plaint. 9. The petitioner's application ought to have been considered on its own merit. The order of the Court below is, therefore, unsustainable in the eye of law. 10. However instead of remanding the matter, this Court has examined the merit of the application. A perusal of the application and facts on record reveals that the application has been filed much after framing of the issues. As such in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment as prayed cannot be allowed, because the trial had commenced after framing of the issues. 11. Not only because of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, the petitioner's application deserves dismissal but there is yet another reason, for which the amendment sought cannot be granted. If the amendment prayed for is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the grounds and prayer seeking possession of the disputed shop, it would change the nature and scope of the suit in its entirety. The present suit which had been filed for enforcement of the agreement would also become a suit for recovery of possession, which is impermissible in law, if the desired amendment is permitted. 12. The present suit which had been filed for enforcement of the agreement would also become a suit for recovery of possession, which is impermissible in law, if the desired amendment is permitted. 12. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any substance in the present writ petition. The order of rejecting petitioner's application dated 28.10.2017, though for other reason, is hereby affirmed. Petition dismissed.