Ramesh And Ors vs Chhitar And Ors on 3 October, 2018

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Ramesh And Ors vs Chhitar And Ors on 3 October, 2018

Bench: Alok Sharma

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23260/2017

1- jkes"k
2- QwypUæ
3- euh'k       iq=ku LohxhZ; Hkaojyky
4- ghjkyky
5- ykMk csok Hkaoj yky
6- lqjs"k
7- jktsUæ mQZ jktw
8- eksgu       iq=ku y{ehukjk;.k
9- x.ks"k
10- "kadj
11- ukFkh csok Lo- txnh"k ukjk;.k
12- caVh mQZ egkohj iq= Lo- txnh"k ukjk;.k
13- jkseh mQZ jktsUæ iq- txnh"k ukjk;.k
         leLr tkfr eh.kk leLr fuoklh xzke ckl chyok rglhy lkxkWausj ftyk
t;iqj gky fuoklh mfu;kjk xkMZu] f=ewfrZ lfdZy ds ikl] t;iqjA
                                                                  &;kfpdkdrkZ
                                      cuke
1- Nhrj
2- ukFkw
3- izgykn iq=ku vk";k leLr tkfr eh.kk fuoklh xzke cj[ksM+k rglhy pkdlw
4- izHkw       ftyk t;iqj
5- jktkjke
6- HkkSjh nsoh iRuh u`flag yky iq=h vk";k fuoklh 194 fgEeruxj] Vksd jksM+]
t;iqjA
7- jkth nsoh iRuh jkekorkj iq=h vk";k fuoklh lsDVj ua- 8] izrki uxj] t;iqjA

                                                                  &vizkFkhZx.k

For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr.Gulab Chand Meena.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr.Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 03/10/2018 Under challenge is the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the trial court dismissing the petitioner-defendant's (hereinafter 'defendant') application purporting to be one under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Order 18 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC, but infact one relatable to Order 18 Rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC in (2 of 3) [CW-23260/2017] view of the fact that the defendant was seeking thereunder a correction of typographical errors in his affidavit in evidence. The trial court has dismissed the defendant's application. Hence this petition.

Order 18 Rule 7 CPC reads as under:-

"Evidence under Section 138--Evidence taken down under Section 138 shall be in the form prescribed by rule 5 and shall be read over and signed and, as occasion may require, interpreted and corrected as if it were evidence taken down under that rule." (underlining mine) Section 151 CPC confers inherent power on civil court in the interest of justice.

I have perused the defendant's relevant affidavit in evidence of which correction was sought as also the application under Order

18 Rule 7 CPC. Quite evidently the defendant indeed merely sought correction of typographical errors in his affidavit in evidence where the dominant averment on multiple occasions was that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land but on one occasion, contrary to the tenor of the affidavit, it was stated that the plaintiff was in possession.

Mr.Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj, counsel for the respondent- plaintiff fairly admitted that a typographical error in an affidavit in evidence can be corrected aside of under Order 18 Rule 7 CPC as also by resorting to Section 151 CPC. Mr.Devendra Bhardwaj however submitted that the plaintiff's suit for cancellation of relinquishment deed dated 30.06.1985 has been pending since 2005 where the plaintiff's evidence was completed in 2013. He submitted that thereafter the defendants have been delaying the (3 of 3) [CW-23260/2017] adjudication of the suit and prayed that the trial court be directed to dispose of the pending suit expeditiously.

Counsel for the defendant on the court's query submitted that there are only 4 of the defendant's witnesses. He stated that the defence evidence will be completed within three months.

Consequently, the order dated 16.11.2017 is set aside and the correction of typographical errors in the defendant's affidavit in evidence as sought in the application are allowed in the exercise of this court's power under Section 151 CPC.

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the underlying suit pending before it within a period of 8 months from the date of the presentation of the certified copy of this order. Adjournments in the suit not be granted without just cause and when necessarily warranted be, by a reasoned order on a proper application in writing therefor being filed to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Trial Court should, also, adhere to the enunciation of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. & Others. [(2011) 9 SCC 678], where it has been held that adjournments should be ordinarily limited to three/ four times in the life of the suit as also the provisions of Order 17 CPC.

The petition is accordingly allowed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur