Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2023 (RAJ)

Karu Lal v. Naveen Kumar

2019-07-22

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.05.2019, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), in Civil. 2. Original Suit No. 6/2016, vide which petitioners' application dated 05.04.2019, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected. 3. Succinctly stated, facts relevant for the present purposes are that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration and injunction against the present petitioners on 20.06.2014. The petitioners filed a written statement on 20.03.2015 and disputed plaintiffs' possession over the disputed land. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed. ^^1- D;k oknhx.k fo:) Áfroknhx.k okafNr ?kks’k.kkRed vuqrks’k ÁkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka rks fdl Ádkj \ --------oknhx.k 2- D;k oknhx.k fo:) Áfroknhx.k okafNr LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkRed vuqrks”k ÁkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gka rks fdl Ádkj \ --------oknhx.k 3- D;k okn oknhx.k U;k;ky; dh J`o.kkf/kdkfjrk ls ijs gSA ;fn gka rks bldk ÁHkko \ --------Áfroknhx.k 4- vuqrks”k\** 5. After completion of the evidence, when the matter was fixed for final arguments, the petitioners-defendants moved an application dated 05.04.2019 and prayed that they be permitted to insert the following para in the form of No. 1-A in the written statement: ^^pj.k la[;k 1&, ;g fd oknhx.k us pj.k la[;k 1 esa of.kZr nksuksa iaftd`r foØ; i=ksa ij QthZ gLrk{kj djokdj nLrkostksa dh dqVjpuk dh vkSj mudk iath;u tku cq>dj Áfroknhx.k ds ifjokj dks uqdlku igaqpkus o uktk;t ykHk ÁkIr djus ds fy;s vius i{k esa djok;k gSA mDr nLrkostksa ds ckjs esa U;k;ky; vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV Árkix<+ ds Ádj.k la[;k jsxqyj Qkstnkjh 209@2012 yfEcr gksdj rkjh[k is'kh fnukad 5@4@2019 dh fu;r gSA gLrys[k fo’ks”kK }kjk dh xbZ tkap fjiksVZ bl Ádj.k esa lyaXu gS blfy;s mijksDr foØ; i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij oknhx.k dksbZ nknjlh ÁkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA** 6. The petitioners' aforesaid application has been rejected by the Trial Court, while observing that the suit has reached the stated of final argument and the amendment application has been filed at a belated stage. It was also held that the FSL Report in question has been issued on 29.02.2011 and the same could have been filed at an earlier point. 7. Dr. It was also held that the FSL Report in question has been issued on 29.02.2011 and the same could have been filed at an earlier point. 7. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Court below has erred in rejecting petitioners' amendment application on the ground of delay and laches. He argued that the amendment application can be filed at any stage, even at appellate stage. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court ' in Abdul Rehman & Anr. vs. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors., 2013 DNJ (SC) 75 and the judgment rendered in Ramesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2012 DNJ (SC) 321. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners filed the present application on 05.04.2019, when the matter was fixed for final hearing. A perusal of the record reveals that the issues had long been framed. As such, the amendment as sought by the petitioners was clearly barred by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That apart, if the amendment, as sought by the petitioners, were to be allowed, it would entirely change the petitioners' case, inasmuch as, while filing the written statement, they had simply disputed plaintiffs' possession; whereas by way of the amendment sought to be introduced, the petitioners would take a stand that the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs, were forged as the signatures thereupon are forged. 10. The petitioners had filed written statement on 20.03.2015, on which date the FSL report and the relevant facts were in existence. As such, the facts, which were in existence at the time of filing written statement and the defence that was available, cannot be permitted to be introduced, by way of amendment application. 11. As far as judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned they are not applicable in the present facts situation. 12. In case of Ramesh Kumar Agarwal (supra), the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was not under consideration before the Court as the facts involved therein did not attract the proviso. 13. 11. As far as judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned they are not applicable in the present facts situation. 12. In case of Ramesh Kumar Agarwal (supra), the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was not under consideration before the Court as the facts involved therein did not attract the proviso. 13. In the case of Abdul Rehman (supra) the amendment application came to be filed on 17.09.2004 by the plaintiff in a suit, which was filed in 2003, as such, the stage of the suit had not changed, for which Hon'ble the Supreme Court was pleased to allow the amendment. 14. There being substantial difference on facts, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The Stay Petition No. 10562/2019 also stands dismissed.