Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 548 (RAJ)

Legal Representatives Of Omprakash v. Hari Singh

2019-02-15

INDERJEET SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs challenging the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants before learned trial Court. Respondent-defendants filed their written statement and evidence of both the parties were completed. Thereafter, during the pendency of the proceedings before learned trial Court, petitioner-plaintiffs filed an application for amendment in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The said application was dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 19.12.2018. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs. 3. Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs submitted that in the reply defendants-respondents pleaded that the Gram Panchayat has issued a Patta in their favour and they have not encroached over the plot of the petitioner-plaintiffs. Counsel further submits that after coming to know the fact of Patta issued by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner-plaintiffs moved an application for amendment in the plaint to stop multiplicity of the litigation. 4. Counsel further submits that the Court can allow the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC at any stage in the interest of justice. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs and perused the record. 6. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons:- (a) Firstly, the petitioner has filed the application for amendment in the plaint after a delay of 09 years from the date of filing of the reply filed by the respondent-defendants. (b) Secondly, the amendment application has been filed after completion of the evidence of both the parties and the petitioner- plaintiffs has also cross-examined the respondent-defendants with regard to Patta in dispute. (c) Thirdly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.