Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Kumar vs Phulwanti Devi on 22 July, 2019
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10776/2019
1. Surendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Munna Lal Lodha, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 44, Sojatiya Bass, Pali- Marwar.
2. Vimala Devi W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Lodha, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Jain, Resident Of 44, Sojatiya Bass, Pali-Marwar.
3. Hemant Kumar S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Lodha, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Jain, Resident Of 44, Sojatiya Bass, Pali-Marwar.
4. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Lodha, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Jain, Resident Of 44, Sojatiya Bass, Pali-Marwar.
5. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Lodha, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Jain, Resident Of 44, Sojatiya Bass, Pali-Marwar.
----Petitioners Versus
1. Phulwanti Devi W/o Late Shri Jawahr Lal Lodha, By Caste Jain, Resident Of Sojatiya Bass, Pali (Expired)
2. Dalpat Singh S/o Shri Jeevraj Singh, By Caste Rajpurohit, Resident Of Dhabbar, At. Present 140, Aadarsh Nagar Extension, Pali
3. Surendra Singh S/o Shri Jeevraj Singh, By Caste Rajpurohit, Resident Of Dhabbar,. At Present 140, Aadarsh Nagar, Extension, Pali.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Pali.
5. Sub-Registrar Office, Pali-Marwar.
6. Roshan Bano D/o Shri Kalu Khan, By Caste Goshi Musalman, Resident Of Goshiwada Keriya Darwaza Pali.
7. Madhu Devi W/o Shri Mohanlal, By Caste Paliwal Brahmin, Resident Of 374, Aanand Nagar Part-B, Mandiya Road, Pali.
8. Chandrakanta Gautam W/o Shri Sohan Lal Gautam, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 77, Himmat Nagar, Pali.
9. Aabida Bano W/o Tayab Ali, By Caste Muslim, R/o Nadi Mohalla Pali.
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 11:33:48 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-10776/2019]
10. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Shri Munna Lal Lodha, By Caste Jain, Resident Of 44, Sojatiya Bass, Pali-Marwar.
11. Savita Devi W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Lodha, By Caste Jain, Resident Of 44, Sojatiya Bass, Pali-Marwar.
12. Miss Rakhi Kumari D/o Suresh Kumar Lodha, Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Father Suresh Kumar Son Of Late Shri Munna Lal Lodha, By Caste Jain, Resident Of 44, Sojatiya Bass, Pali-Marwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Bhaiya
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
22/07/2019
In a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed filed by the petitioners in the year 2001, the written statements were filed by the respondents-defendants on 10.01.2003 and issued were framed on 21.12.2004. When the suit reached the stage of plaintiffs' evidence, the petitioners submitted an application dated 15.09.2018 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought quashment of transfers made by the defendants, purportedly during the pendency of the suit, while seeking impleadment of the purchasers.
In the application aforesaid, the petitioners have averred various facts relating to transactions, but have not specifically mentioned as to which para of the plaint, they wanted amendment.
Be that as it may, the petitioners' aforesaid application came to be rejected by the Trial Court, vide its order dated 04.07.2019, with the observation that the amendment application (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 11:33:48 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-10776/2019] has been filed at highly belated stage and the same seeks incorporation of the facts, which were available to the petitioners much before filing of the application.
Mr. Bhaiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the order dated 04.07.2019, vide which the petitioner's amendment application has been rejected, contended that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting petitioner's amendment application, as it is settled position of law that the amendment can be allowed at any stage, he added that by the amendment in question, the nature of the suit will not be altered.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.
Indisputedly, the suit in question had been filed way back in the year 2001 and it has proceeded at a snail's pace to reach at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence.
By way of the present amendment application, the petitioners have tried to get quashment of various sale-deeds, executed in the year 2004, 2007, 2008 etc. The petitioners have raised omnibus allegations and have not made specific prayer that in which part of the plaint they wanted amendment and which facts inserted.
It is to be noticed that the petitioners had filed a composite application under Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 of the Code, without separately mentioning the names of the parties they wanted to implead. The petitioners' application under consideration was bereft of merit and the same has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court.
That apart, if the amendment, as prayed by the petitioners' is allowed, it would require impleadment of various (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 11:33:48 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-10776/2019] parties, service of notice upon them and production of various documents, which would expand the suit to an unmanageable extent and the suit, as framed originally, would lose its basic character and frame.
This Court does not find any error of jurisdiction or infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Trial Court, for which, the writ petition is dismissed.
The Stay Application No.10687/2019 also stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 245-skm/-
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 11:33:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)