Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2618 (RAJ)

Nathu Lal v. Jitendra Singh

2019-09-27

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.08.2019, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), vide which petitioner's application dated 05.11.2015, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. 2. Succinctly stated, the fact pertinent are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in the year 2014. The issues in the suit were framed on 01.07.2015. When the case was at the stage of petitioner's evidence, he moved the subject application on 05.11.2015, inter alia praying that he be permitted amend para No. 1 of the plaint to the effect that expression "100 years" be inserted. The issues in the suit were framed on 01.07.2015. When the case was at the stage of petitioner's evidence, he moved the subject application on 05.11.2015, inter alia praying that he be permitted amend para No. 1 of the plaint to the effect that expression "100 years" be inserted. The amendment sought by the petitioner is reproduced hereunder:- ^^1- okn pj.k la[;k 1 dh ykbZu la- 6 esa ‘kCn ^^vU; xkao ds yksx** ds vkxs o ‘kCn ^^vkrs tkrs gSa** ds igys ^^djhc 100 lkyks ls Hkh vf/kd le; ls** ‘kCn tksM+uk pkgrk gSaA rFkk okn pj.k la[;k 1 dh ykbZu la- 7 ds vUr esa ;g iaxrh tksM+uk pkgrk gS ^^rFkk xkao Árkiiqjk ds vkx fuoklh;ku ds lkFk lkFk oknh dks Hkh bl jkLrs dk mi;ksx miHkksx vkus tkus gsrq] viuk dk’rdkjh lkeku] csyxkM+h] VªSDVj] eos'kh bR;knh ykus o ys tkus dk lq[kkf/kdkj ÁkIr gks x;k gSA** dks tksM+ dj vius okn esa la’kks/ku djkuk pkgrk gSaA 3- blh Ádkj oknh ds }kjk vius okn esa pkgs x;s vuqrks"k dh pj.k ^^v** ds ckn v&1 ds :i esa vuqrks"k tksM+uk pkgrk gSaA v&1 ^^fd oknxzLr jkLrk djhc 100 lkyksa ls Hkh vf/kd le; iqjkuk jkLrk gSa] ftlls xkao Árkiiqjk dh vke turk ds lkFk lkFk oknh dks Hkh bl jkLrs dk mi;ksx miHkksx djus] viuk dk'rdkjh lkeku] csyxkM+h] VSªDVj] eos'kh bR;knh ykus o ys tkus dk lq[kkf/kdkj ÁkIr gks x;k gSA** dks tksM+ dj vius okn esa la'kks/ku djkuk pkgrk gSaA** As against the amendment sought, para No. 1, as originally filed, reads thus:- ^^1- ;g fd xzke Árkiiqjk rglhy o ftyk Árkix<+ jkt- esa ,d lkoZtfud vke jkLrk vkus tkus cSyxkM+h] VSªDVj bR;knh vkus tkus dk dnhe ls gS ;g lkoZtfud vke jkLrk jktLo vkjkth;krksa ls yxrk gwvk iwjkus le; ls xzke Árkiiqjk ls eksj>j gks gq, vkxs fudyrk gSA bl jkLrs ls xzke fuoklh;ku Árkiiqjk ,oa vU; xkaoksa ds yksx vkrs tkrs gS rFkk dk'rdkjh lkeku o cSyxkM+h VªSDVj eos'kh bR;knh vkrs tkrs gSA** 3. The petitioner's amendment application was contested by the respondents and the same came to be decided by the Trial Court, vide its order dated 17.08.2019 (though arguments thereupon seem to have been heard on 02.12.2017). The petitioner's amendment application was contested by the respondents and the same came to be decided by the Trial Court, vide its order dated 17.08.2019 (though arguments thereupon seem to have been heard on 02.12.2017). While rejecting petitioner's application, the Trial Court observed as under:- ^^i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k x;kA gLrxr Ádj.k esa oknh dh vksj ls okn fnukad 08-07-2014 dks U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k gSA oknh ds okn dk tokc Áfroknhx.k dh vksj ls fnukad 25- 02-2015 o 18-04-2015 dks is'k fd;k x;k gS rnqijkUr Ádj.k esa mHk; i{kdkjku dh mifLFkfr esa fnukad 01-07- 2015 dks fook|d dk;e fd;s x;s gSaA fopkj.k ds bl ÁØe ij oknh }kjk mDr ÁkFkZuk i= is'k fd;k tkuk dsoy ek= Ádj.k ds fopkj.k dks foyfEcr ,oa ckf/kr djus dh ea'kk dks ifjyf{kr djrk gSA pwafd oknh }kjk okn ds ewyHkwr i=koyh okLrs lk{; oknh fnukad 31-08-19 dks is'k gksA** 4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 17.08.2019, is per se illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside, inasmuch as reasons given by the Trial Court are not germane to the petitioner's application. If the petitioner's application is allowed, neither the framework nor the nature of the suit would be changed. In support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme court rendered in the case of N.C. Bansal vs. Uttr Pradesh Financial Corporation & Anr., (2018) 2 SCC 347 . 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. The submissions made by Mr. Jain appears to be correct The amendment, which the petitioner has sought, cannot be said to be changing the frame/structure of the suit nor the nature of the suit. The amendments, which the petitioner in essence has sought, are that in addition to the expression used "kadeen", meaning "since time immemorial", the expression "more than 100 years" be incorporated. 7. On the principles laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Bansal (supra), if the order of the Trial Court is examined, the same is untenable. It is correct that the proposed amendments will not change the nature of the suit. ' 8. However, on merit, petitioner's application deserves rejection. 7. On the principles laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Bansal (supra), if the order of the Trial Court is examined, the same is untenable. It is correct that the proposed amendments will not change the nature of the suit. ' 8. However, on merit, petitioner's application deserves rejection. It is to be noted that the amendments prayed for are hardly of any significance. The facts, which the petitioner proposes to add/substitute, are matter of evidence and for them amendment in pleadings is not required. 9. The fact that the disputed way has been used for time immemorial or for more than 100 years, makes hardly any difference in the pleadings and averments made in the plaint. 10. In view of the aforesaid, though finding the order of the Trial Court to be not in accordance with law, instead of remanding the matter, this Court decides the application itself, which is dismissed. 11. Finding no force, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.