Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1538 (RAJ)

Rampyari v. Prem Chand

2022-05-12

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure P/8) passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar in Civil Suit No. 23/2015, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was rejected. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner, being the permanent resident of Sri Ganganagar, purchased a piece of land from one Shri Aasu Ram in the year 1996. In pursuance of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and Aasu Ram, the due consideration of the land was paid and the possession of the land was taken over. After the purchase of the land, the petitioner is in its possession. The petitioner was surprised to receive a notice of execution in the execution proceedings undertaken by the respondent No. 1 Prem Chand in the year 2015. The petitioner enquired the facts of the matter and came to know that the land which was purchased by her was already sold to the respondent Prem Chand by Aasu Ram in the year 1983 and a decree was passed in favour of Prem Chand for which the execution proceedings are in process. Immediately, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC by raising objections in the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the execution proceedings an FIR was registered by the husband of the petitioner and the police investigated the matter. During the investigation, it was revealed that the deed was written by one Shri Imrat Lal in the year 1983 but the deed writer Imrat Lal is stated to have passed away in the year 1979 itself. Therefore, the document/deed on basis of which the respondent-plaintiff Prem Chand got the suit decreed in his favour was forged. The fact of deed writer Imrat Lal having passed away in the year 1979 and therefore, he could not have written the deed in 1983 was sought to be brought on record by the petitioner by way of filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 4. The fact of deed writer Imrat Lal having passed away in the year 1979 and therefore, he could not have written the deed in 1983 was sought to be brought on record by the petitioner by way of filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 4. Learned counsel further submits that since this fact that Imrat Lal died in the year 1979 and therefore, he could not be the author of the deed in the year 1983 was not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing objections before the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, therefore, the same were not incorporated in the objections filed therein. Since these facts got unearthed during the course of investigation, therefore, the petitioner preferred this application for amendment of the pleadings preferred by her under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. 5. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the facts in the correct perspective and has erroneously rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for amendment in the application vide order dated 08.10.2018. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that since no documentary evidence was placed on record along with the application preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 therefore, learned trial court rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner vide its order dated 08.10.2018. He further submits that learned trial court considered the application preferred by the petitioner and passed a reasoned and detailed order and the same does not warrant any interference by this court. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar, and gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned order dated 08.10.2018. 8. The facts in the matter clearly show that the petitioner purchased a piece of land from Aasu Ram in the year 1996 and on the strength of the sale deed, the petitioner was handed over the possession and she continues to be in the possession of the said piece of land. Since the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser, there was no occasion for her to think that the land which was sold to her, was already sold to some other person prior to this transaction. Since the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser, there was no occasion for her to think that the land which was sold to her, was already sold to some other person prior to this transaction. It was only when the petitioner received the notice of the execution proceedings, for the first time she came to know that the land which was sold to her was already sold by Aasu Ram to the respondent-plaintiff Prem Chand and a decree thereafter was also passed in favour of Prem Chand. 9. In these circumstances, an FIR was also registered by the petitioner's husband and simultaneously the petitioner preferred an application raising objections before the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. During the pendency of the application/objection preferred by the petitioner, she came to know about the fact of the deed writer having passed away in the year 1979 itself and therefore, there was no question that Imrat Lal would have been the deed writer in the year 1983. Since this fact was revealed during the course of investigation and the same was not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the objections, therefore, the petitioner rightly preferred an application for amending the contents of the application preferred by her under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and the amendment sought for was just, proper and correct. The learned trial court was not justified in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC vide order dated 08.10.2018 10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure P/8) passed by learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar in Civil Suit No. 23/2015 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is allowed to carry out the amendments asked for by way of filing an application preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 11. It is made clear that after the amendment of the pleadings in the written submissions preferred by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, the respondent will be free to file the reply of this amended application. 12. The stay application as well as other pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.