Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 338 (RAJ)

Mahendra Kumar Dhakar v. Venkatraman Dhakar

2021-02-10

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short, 'the defendants'), against the order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Trial Court whereby the application filed by the defendants u/O. 6 R. 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (for short, 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 26.4.2007. The defendants filed their written statement, but inadvertently the word 'not' was left to be written/typed and it was mentioned that the suit property is in possession and khatedari of the plaintiffs for the past 30 years. The defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement, but the same came to be dismissed by the trial court vide its order dated 13.7.2016. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that it was specifically mentioned by the defendants in paras 7, 9, 10 and in para 1 of additional pleas of the written statement that they are in possession of the land in dispute for the last 30 years. But inadvertently in para 2 of the additional pleas, it was mentioned that the land in dispute is in the khatedari and possession of the plaintiffs for the last 30 years and word 'not' was left to be written/typed. When this fact came to the notice of the defendants, they immediately filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking to amend the written statement, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the trial had commenced and the admission made by the defendants in their written statement couldn't be withdrawn by way of amendment. He further submits that by the amendment, as sought, nature of the defence would not be changed and their defence would remain the same. In this view of the matter, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is required to be allowed and the impugned order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Trial Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that he has no objection if the impugned order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Trial Court is quashed and set-aside. However, he prays that the Trial Court be directed to decide the pending suit expeditiously. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that he has no objection if the impugned order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Trial Court is quashed and set-aside. However, he prays that the Trial Court be directed to decide the pending suit expeditiously. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly in view of the consent of learned counsel for the plaintiff, the impugned order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Trial Court is quashed and set-aside and the application filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed. The defendants shall submit the amended written statement within 14 days from today. However, taking into consideration the fact that the suit is pending before the Trial Court since the year 2010, the trial court is directed to decide the same expeditiously but not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 7. Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, stay application and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly and resultantly, the interim order dated 14.12.2016 is vacated.