Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 219 (RAJ)

Tulsi Devi v. Laddu Gopal Tanwar

2023-01-18

SAMEER JAIN

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Sameer Jain, J.) With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal. 2. The lis in question arises out of the order dated 16/09/2015 passe by learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.287/2015 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 16 read with section 151 CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that one application bearing no.1150/2010 was filed on 25/03/2010 for grant of probate in respect of will dated 15/02/2007 and reply to the said application was filed by defendant-respondent no.4. The said application was registered as Civil Suit No.287/2015 and the defendant-respondent filed their written statements/reply. An application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC to substitute the term 'Probate' by 'Letter of Administration' in the body of plaint, which was allowed by the learned Court below vide order dated 21/08/2015. The defendants-respondents were also given liberty by the learned court below to amend their written statement accordingly, in view of the amended plaint. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner contended that in the light of the order dated 21/08/2015, right of the defendants-respondents to file reply to the amended plaint was only to the extent of the contents amended by the plaintiff-petitioner and not beyond to that. However, in the garb of the liberty granted by the learned court below, the defendants-respondents made substantial changes in the written statement/reply and the same was totally inconsistent with the earlier reply/written statement. In this background, on 04/09/2015 the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 16 for striking out of the pleadings in the written statement which were beyond the scope. The said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16/09/2015 and being aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. In support of the said contentions, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Gurudial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja: 2002(2) SCC 445 as also a judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramswaroop (since deceased) through his Lrs. Smt. Gyandar & Ors. v. Manna Lal & Ors.: 2015 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 602. In support of the said contentions, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Gurudial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja: 2002(2) SCC 445 as also a judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramswaroop (since deceased) through his Lrs. Smt. Gyandar & Ors. v. Manna Lal & Ors.: 2015 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 602. While relying upon the said judgments, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that a new plea cannot be permitted to be added in the garb of consequent amendments. In the case in hand, the amendment, which was permitted by the learned court below was limited to the contents of the amended portion only. Therefore, new pleas and inconsistent pleadings should be struck off and the impugned order should be recalled. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents supported the order impugned passed by the learned court below and submits that while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the writ court can only interfere when there is a manifest error, jurisdictional error or foundational error in the order impugned. Learned counsel contends that in the case in hand, justified reasons have been given by the learned court below for dismissing application of the plaintiff-petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Razak (D) through L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors.: (2010) 2 SCC 432 and also judgments of coordinate Bench of this Court in Maqsooda v. Abdul Karim & Ors.: 1996(2) RLW 70 and in Ramchandra v. Mahendra Singh: AIR 1980 RAJ 4 . He further submitted that the defendants-respondents cannot be debarred from submitting fresh written statement and taking additional pleas. He further contended that the pleadings can only be struck out at any stage when the same are considered unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and that as striking out pleadings has a serious impact, the said option should be exercised with great care and conspicuous. The order passed by the learned court below is justified and well reasoned and therefore, calls for no interference. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned records of the writ petition and considered the judgments cited at bar. 8. The order passed by the learned court below is justified and well reasoned and therefore, calls for no interference. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned records of the writ petition and considered the judgments cited at bar. 8. In the case in hand, it was the plaintiff-petitioner who amended the word 'Probate', which was replaced by 'Letter of Administration'. The plaintiff-petitioner has also amended the suit with an amended prayer, which has its own consequence. As a result, the learned court below has rightly observed that there can be serious effect of striking out the pleadings. Learned court below has also observe that the plaintiff-petitioner has failed to show how the amended reply/written statements were inconsistent with the previous reply/written submission. Learned Trial Court has also rightly observed that the amendment sought by the plaintiff-petitioner had changed the nature and scope of the suit and therefore, in accordance with principles of natural justice, the defendants-respondents were justified in filing the amended reply/written statement in support of their defence. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the defendants-respondents are squarely applicable as nowhere the plaintiff-petitioner has said that the amended pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. While placing reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Razak (D) through L.Rs. (supra), this Court holds that while striking out the pleadings, the Court concerned has to be extremely cautious as the same would have serious impact on the rights of the concerned parties and until and unless there are compelling reasons, the pleadings should not be stricken. In the facts of the instant case and considering the settled position of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated and all pending applications stand disposed of in the same terms.