Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Dabu India Ltd And Anr vs Addi District Judge And Ors on 3 February, 2011
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16783/2010 M/s Dabur India Limited & anr Vs ADJ(FT) No.2, Alwar & ors 3.2.2011 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Vinendra Agerwala - for petitioners Mr RK Mathur, Sr Adv with Mr Atul Sharma for respondents BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 27.11.2010. By the aforesaid order, application moved by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CPC) has been dismissed.
It is a case where plaintiff respondent No.2 Naresh Trading Company filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.2,21,798/-. Petitioner herein filed written statement. After completion of evidence of plaintiff, an application was moved by the defendant for taking certain documents on record. Application so moved was dismissed on the ground that nothing has been pleaded in the written statement viz-a-viz documents sought to be produced. On dismissal of the application aforesaid, petitioner made an application for making amendment in the written statement. The application so preferred has been dismissed by the court below for the reasons given in the order impugned.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that plaintiff respondent was not managing the agency of the petitioner company properly. They were receiving complaints against plaintiff-respondent. Looking to the aforesaid, plaintiff respondent No.2 was not allowed to continue with the agency and, accordingly, not entitled for the amount sought to be recovered. The amendment sought to be made was to show the conduct of the plaintiff respondent No.2 as it was not properly dealing with the dealers. The court below, ignoring the aforesaid, dismissed the application summarily.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the court below.
I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully.
It is a case where written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioner based on the facts available with them to justify their action. The amendment was sought after completion of evidence of plaintiff respondent No.2. The court below has considered all the issues relevant to the matter and I find no error or illegality in the findings of the court below. If the petitioner was having knowledge about certain facts, it should have been pleaded in written statement. If such facts came to the knowledge of the petitioner later on, it cannot be said to be relevant as decision to discontinue and claim for recovery of the amount is in reference of the action of the agency at the relevant time and cannot be justified based on knowledge of facts subsequently. In the light of aforesaid discussion and the reasons assigned by the court below, no case is made out for interference of this court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed so as the stay application. No costs.
(MN Bhandari) J.
bnsharma