Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1318 (RAJ)

Madan Lal Sonar v. Kanta Brahmin

2019-05-02

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the dispute has already been adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Babu Lal Vs. Kanta (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10997/2018) decided on 10.09.2018. The judgment dated 10.09.2018 reads as follows:- "By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 05.12.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as "Trial Court") whereby the petitioner's two applications dated 11.10.2017, one under Order VI Rule 17 and the other under Order VIII Rule (1-A)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, have been rejected, The facts relevant for the purpose of present controversy are that in the year 2015, the plaintiff-respondent herein had filed a suit for eviction and recovery of the arrears of the rent against the defendant, the petitioner. herein. The defendant filed a written-statement on 10.08.2015; the issues were framed; plaintiff's evidence was over; and when the matter reached the stage of defendant's evidence, he moved aforesaid two applications on 11.10.2017, seeking amendment in the written statement and praying for leave to place certain documents, on record in confirmity with the proposed amendments. In the amendment application, the petitioner stated that he has recently obtained certified copies of the proceedings of Gram-Panchayat Sahwa, wherein the applicant (defendant-Babulal) and Madanlal have been recorded as owner of the disputed land, and sought leave to introduce four amendments in the written statement, enumerated in paras No. 1 to 4 of the amendment application. In the same line, another application under Order VIII Rule (1-A)(3) of the Code was filed seeking leave to produce abovementioned documents. Learned Trial Court rejected the both the applications inter alia observing that the amendment sought and the leave to produce the documents were highly belated and the same would change the nature of the suit. Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the written statement had been filed in the year 2015, the petitioner-defendant received the certified copies of the proceedings in the month of October, 2017 and immediately on receipt thereof, he had moved the applications under consideration. Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the written statement had been filed in the year 2015, the petitioner-defendant received the certified copies of the proceedings in the month of October, 2017 and immediately on receipt thereof, he had moved the applications under consideration. He emphasized that not only the amendment sought in the written statement, the documents filed alongwith the application under Order VIII Rule (1-A)(3) Code are very relevant for the purpose of deciding the real controversy and dispute between the parties, for which, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the applications filed by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Upon perusal of the amendment application, it transpires that the proceedings and particulars of "Pattas" mentioned in the application and the documents relate to 2013, whereas the suit in question was filed in the year 2014. It is pertinent that in the written statement, which has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2015, neither any assertion regarding grant of these "Pattas" and proceedings have been made, nor even a passing reference has been made. It was required of the petitioner-defendant to have set out his case or defense in tune with the proceedings of the Panchayat or his title. Merely, under the pretext that the petitioner did not have these documents handy at the time of filing the written statement, he can not claim any right to amend the written statement, at such a belated stage, particularly when the Trial had commenced and the case is at the stage of defendant's evidence. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error of law in rejecting petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908. As the amendment of the written statement has been refused by learned Trial Court and duly affirmed by this Court, needless to observe that any documents concerning the said amendment also can not be taken on record, in absence of the pleadings or specific reference. Hence, the order of the learned Trial Court rejecting the petitioner's application dated 11.10.2017 filed under Order VIII Rule (1-A)(3) of the Code also deserves to be affirmed and the same is hereby affirmed. Hence, the order of the learned Trial Court rejecting the petitioner's application dated 11.10.2017 filed under Order VIII Rule (1-A)(3) of the Code also deserves to be affirmed and the same is hereby affirmed. In view of the discussion aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned, for which/the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs." 2. In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition is dismissed in the same terms.