Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1981 (RAJ)

Haridas v. Pratapmal Dhadewa

2019-07-16

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition has been directed against the order dt. 02.7.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court'), whereby the petitioners' application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure dt. 23.04.2019 has been rejected. 2. Briefly narrated the facts of the present case are that in the year 1991 a suit came to be filed by the respondent No. 1-Trust against the present petitioners for permanent injunction and declaration. In the suit so filed, the petitioners-defendants filed a written statement and considering the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed way back on 02.05.1997. 3. With a view to complete the facts, it may be pointed out that the written statement was subsequently amended and so also the issues (on 21.08.2007). 4. When the suit was at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence on 19.03.2019, PW.2-Sumer Mal during his cross-examination deposed that he is a trustee of the plaintiff-Trust, but no document is available on the record. In light of the aforesaid deposition made by PW.2, the petitioners moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and sought insertion of additional plea in his written statement to the effect that since Shri Sumer Mal- trustee has not produced any document in support of his assertion as a trustee, his suit is not maintainable. 5. The plaintiff-Trust filed a reply to the petitioners' application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and objected to grant of the amendment at such a belated stage. Learned trial Court vide its order dt. 02.07.2019, rejected petitioners' aforesaid application dt. 5. The plaintiff-Trust filed a reply to the petitioners' application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and objected to grant of the amendment at such a belated stage. Learned trial Court vide its order dt. 02.07.2019, rejected petitioners' aforesaid application dt. 23.04.2019 holding as under : ^^nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls cgl ds nkSjku fn;s x;s rdksZa ij euu fd;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA ÁLrqr U;kf;d n”VkUrksa dk llEeku voyksdu dj ekxZn'kZu ÁkIr fd;kA bl ekeys esa ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd nkok orZeku esa lk{; Áfroknh esa fu;r gSA vkns’k 6 fu;e 17 fl-Á-la ds ijUrqd ds vuqlkj la'kks/ku ds fy, dksbZ Hkh vkosnu fopkj.k ÁkjEHk fd, tkus ds ckn Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk,xk tc rd fd U;k;ky; bl fu”d”kZ ij ugha igqWprk gks fd lE;d~ rRijrk ds ckotwn] i{kdkj fopkj.k ds ÁkjEHk gksus ls igys ekeys dks ugha mBk ldrk FkkA gLrxr ekeys esa fojfpr rudh la[;k&7 dks ;fn ns[kk tkos rks mlds vuqlkj ;g r; fd;k tkuk gS fd] ^^vk;k oknh la-4 dh e`R;q ds i'pkr~ vU; fdlh VªLVh dks oknhx.k dh Js.kh esa ugha tksM+us ls VªLV&MhM ds vuqlkj de ls de rhu VªLVh gksus vko';d gksus ls VªLV vfLrRofoghu gks x;k gS rFkk nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\** gLrxr ekeys esa oknh i{k ds rhuksa gh VªfLV;ksa dh e`R;q gks tkuk rFkk oknh la- 5 o 6 }kjk nkok lapkfyr fd;k tk jgk gSA oknh la[;k&5 o 6 dks oknh VªLV esa fgrc) ekurs gq, oknh i{kdkj ds :i la;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk ftlds laca/k esa Áfroknhx.k dh vksj l vkifRr;kW mBk;h x;h Fkh tks vkifRr;kaW fnukad 10-01-19 dks [kkfjt dh x;h gSA lkj :i ls ;fn rudh la[;k&7 dks ns[kk tk;s rks bldk lkj ;g gS fd VªLVMhM ds vuqlkj de ls de rhu VªLVh gksus vko’;d gS rFkk oknh VªLV vfLrRofoghu gks x;k gS ftl dkj.k nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS tks lk{; ls fofuf'pr gksuk gS vkSj blds laca/k esa Áfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ftjg Hkh dh x;h gSA nkok lk{; Áfroknh esa fu;r gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vc tokcnkok esa la’kks/ku dh dksbZ vko’;drk mfpr ugha Bgjrh gSA Áfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ÁLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr jkenkl VªLV cuke nkeksnjnkl dk ekeyk /ku fjdojh ls lacaf/kr gS blfy;s mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr ;gkW ij pLik fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2014¼3½ vkj-,y-Mcyw- 1893 ¼jkt-½ oklqnso vkfn cuke vukj nsoh vkfn ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ;fn fdlh la'kks/ku dks eatwj djus ls U;k; ds vafre fuiVkjs gsrq okLro esa lgk;rk feyrh gS vkSj vkxs vkSj eqdnesckth ls NqVdkjk feyrk gS rks la'kks/ku Lohdkj fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2017¼1½ vkj-,y-Mcyw-144 ¼jkt-½ pUnz Ádk'k vxzoky cuke fj/kdj.k ij'kqjkeiqfj;k vkfn ds ekeys es pkgk x;k la'kks/ku lgh fu.kZ; gsrq vko’;d gksus o eqdnesa ckth dks ?kVkuk ekurs gq, ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk la'kks/ku dh vuqefr Ánku dh x;hA mDr U;kf;d n`”VkUrksa esa Áfrikfnr fl)kUrksa llEeku lgefr O;Dr gS ysfdu mijksDr foospukuqlkj bl Ádj.k esa rudh la[;k&7 ds lac/ak esa Áfroknhx.k dh vksj ls dh x;h ftjg ,oa vU; rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, bls lk{; ls r; fd;k tkuk gS blfy;s mDr U;kf;d n`”VkUrksa dk dksbZ ykHk Áfroknhx.k dks fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha Bgjrk rFkk vU; U;kf;d n`“VkUrksa ds rF; gLrxr Ádj.k ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k muls Hkh Áfroknhx.k dks dksbZ lgk;rk ugha feyrh gSA Ádj.k vafre LVst ij gS rFkk vUrfufgZr rudh;kr esa ÁkFkZuki= esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa dk lekos'k Hkh gSA fygktk Áfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ÁLrqr ÁkFkZuki= varxZr vkns’k 6 fu;e 17 lifBr /kkjk 151 fl-Á-la- ÁkFkZuki= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS tks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA Ádj.k Ákphure Ádj.kksa esa ls gS ftlds laca/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Rofjr xfr ls fuLrkj.k ds vkns’k Hkh gSA Áfroknhx.k vkxkeh is'kh ij vius xokgku dks mifLFkr j[ksa ,oa xokgku ds c;ku vko’;d :i ls iw.kZ djokosaA i=koyh lk{; Áfroknh gsrq fnukad 09-07- 2019 dks is'k gksA** 6. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners impugning the order passed by the trial Court contended that the trial Court has erred in rejecting petitioners' amendment application and the reasons assigned thereunder are not germane to the adjudication of an amendment application. He further argued that the rejection of the petitioners' application in light of issue No. 7 is clearly untenable, inasmuch as issue No. 7 deals with a boarder aspect and does not cover the question sought by the petitioner, by way of the amendment application. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record including the impugned order. 8. It is not in dispute that the suit in question was filed in the year 1991; the written statement was filed immediately thereafter; issues have been framed in the year 1997; and the impugned proceedings are at the stage of defendants' evidence. 9. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the trial of the suit has commenced and the amendment sought by the petitioners is clearly hit by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. 10. The petitioners have not indicated in their application as to how they were precluded from bringing these facts on record, prior to moving the present application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. 11. Though for different reasons (as stated above), this Court does not find any infirmity in the ultimate order passed by the trial Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application No. 10255/2019 is also dismissed.