Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shri Paman Das vs . Smt. Ramjyot Devi Mangal on 10 October, 2014
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9804/2014 Shri Paman Das vs. Smt. Ramjyot Devi Mangal UNDER ARTICLE 226 and 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.12.2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.) BEAWAR IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 28/02 (96/90). Date of Judgment : 10th October, 2014 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Tarun Mishra, for the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the order dated 2.12.2013, passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Beawar, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, Smt. Ramjyot Devi Mangal, filed an eviction suit against the petitioner on the ground of default of payment of rent. According to the respondent, she had rented out a hall along with an adjacent room and verandah on the ground floor out of the property which belonged to her, situated in Ward No.24, House No.15, also known as Mangal Bhawan. The said premise was rented out for an amount of Rs. 225/- per month. She also claimed that a flour mill was also erected in the hall of the rented premises and is part of the rented property. According to her, the possession of the said property was given to the petitioner on 7.4.1982 through an oral agreement. However, from 18.9.1987 till 9.9.1990, the petitioner failed to pay the rent amount. Therefore, she had filed an eviction suit on the ground of default of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide necessity for her sons and on the ground of continuous nuisance.
3. The petitioner filed a written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. Subsequently, the petitioner noticed certain facts, which he wanted to bring on record by way of amending the written statement. Therefore, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. However, by order dated 2.12.2013, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court.
4. Mr. Tarun Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court:
Firstly, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the petitioner is entitled to amend the written statement at any stage prior to pronouncement of judgment. Hence, the amendment should have been allowed by the learned Magistrate. Secondly, the subsequent events clearly reveal that the respondent has other premises available to her to fulfill the bona fide needs of her children. Therefore, it is imperative to bring the subsequent events to the notice of the learned trial court in order to demolish the case of the respondent. However, according to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate both the legal as well as factual position. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
6. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is as under:-
17. Amendment of Pleadings.-the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
7. Although, the Rule 17 begins with the words the court may at any stage of proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings, but the proviso carves out an exception. According to the proviso, such an amendment shall not be allowed after the trial has commenced i.e. after the issues have been framed by the learned trial court, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Thus, it was for the petitioner to convince the court that he could not have known the subsequent developments prior to the framing of the issues. But he has failed to do so.
8. The conduct of a party is an essential factor to be considered while entertaining an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. According to the learned Magistrate, the suit was filed in the year 1990 and the evidence of the respondent was closed on 5.12.2011. Ever since then, the case is pending for the petitioner's evidence. According to the petitioner himself, the adjacent shop was rented out to another person as far back as 1998. Yet, according to the petitioner, who is a neighbour, he did not come to know about the fact that adjacent shop was rented out, till 17.9.2013. It is rather surprising that a person would not know as to when the adjacent shops are being rented by the same landlord. Such a stand is against human behaviour, especially when the petitioner has been fighting a legal battle with the landlord since 1990. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is certainly justified that the facts which the petitioner is trying to now bring on record through amending his written statement were well known to him even earlier. Hence, the learned Magistrate is also justified in concluding that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is merely a clever ploy to delay the conclusion of the trial. Since the learned Magistrate has given valid and cogent reasons, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application, too, stands dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN),J.
Mak/-
35All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Anil Makawana P.A.