Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kishan Chand Gurjar & Ors vs Murti Mandir Shri Ram Laxmanji on 2 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.3013/2005 Kishan Chand Gurjar & ors Vs Murti Mandir Shri Ram Laxmanji Maharaj, Arnetha & ors 2.2.2011 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Sanjay Mehrishi - for petitioners Mr NK Maloo, Sr Adv with Mr Vinod Tamboli for respondents BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 15.3.2005, whereby, application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed. The application was allowed taking note of the subsequent events during the pendency of suit.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that pursuant to Annexure-6, plaintiff respondent was liable to remove and dispossess petitioners-defendants at any time. They were, in fact, removed and dispossessed prior to filing of the suit thus event of removal and dispossession cannot be said to be subsequent to filing of the suit. Amendment permitted on the aforesaid ground is thus suffers form error apparent and, hence, the impugned order may be set aside.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that plaintiff was removed and dispossessed during the pendency of suit thus aforesaid subsequent event is brought on record by amendment with consequential prayer. The trial court has rightly allowed the application.
I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and have scanned the matter carefully.
According to petitioner-defendants, respondent- plaintiff was removed prior to filing of the suit, however, I find no such averment in the written statement. This is more so when counsel for petitioners called upon to show such averment to come to the conclusion that removal and dispossession of the plaintiff is not subsequent to filing of the suit. Nothing has been averred in the written statement showing removal and dispossession of the plaintiff. It may be that plaintiff- respondent has given a letter at Annexure-6 but it is only a liberty given, and as to whether he was removed or dispossessed prior to filing of the suit is not coming out from the aforesaid letter. The events of removal and dispossession being subsequent to filing of the suit thus allowed to be added by way of amendment in the plaint thus I do not find any error in the impugned order.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed so as the stay application.
Learned trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings so that suit can be decided at the earliest since it is pending from the year 1997.
(MN Bhandari) J.
bnsharm