Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ganga Devi W/O Shri Gheesaram Daughter ... vs Tarachand S/O Shri Ramjilal Saini on 7 November, 2019
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16568/2019
Ganga Devi W/o Shri Gheesaram Daughter Of Shri Ballaram,
Aged About 80 Years, By Caste Mali Resident Of Sodhi Ka Bas In
Front Of Sunil Nursing Home, Alwar (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Tarachand S/o Shri Ramjilal Saini, By Caste Mali, Resident
Of Sodhi Ka Bas In Front Of Sunil Nursing Home, Alwar
(Rajasthan)
2. Suraj Chand S/o Shri Ramjilal Saini, By Caste Mali
Resident Of Sodhi Ka Bas In Front Of Sunil Nursing Home,
Alwar (Rajasthan) Now Deceased Through Legal
Representative
2/1. Pappi Widow Suraj, By Caste Saini, aged about 40 years,
Resident Of Sodhi Ka Bas In Front Of Sunil Nursing Home,
Alwar (Rajasthan)
2/2. Anil S/o Suraj, Aged About 20 Years, By Caste Saini,
Resident Of Sodhi Ka Bas In Front Of Sunil Nursing Home,
Alwar (Rajasthan)
2/3. Sunil S/o Suraj, Aged About 18 Years, By Caste Saini
Resident Of Sodhi Ka Bas In Front Of Sunil Nursing Home,
Alwar (Rajasthan)
2/4. Kumari Chanda @ Chandni D/o Shri Suraj, Aged About 16
Years, By Caste Saini Through Her Mother Smt Pappi W/o
Shri Suraj Resident Of Sodhi Ka Bas In Front Of Sunil
Nursing Home, Alwar (Rajasthan)
3. Kishto Devi W/o Late Shri Prahlad Saini D/o Rammo Devi,
Resident Of Naruka Colony Near Krishna Academy Bus
Stand Road Alwar
4. Smt Bhonti Devi W/o Daluram, By Caste Saini Resident Of
Scheme No.4 Bad Kesamne Pratiwala Mohlla Alwar
5. Manno Devi W/o Late Shri Ghanshyama Saini, Resident Of
Sodhi Ka Bas In Front Of Sunil Nursing Home Alwar
6. Tiza Devi W/o Gheesaram, By Caste Saini, Choroti Wale
Bevdi Wala Kuwa Mannaka Road, Near Rajasthan School
Alwar
(Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 02:09:11 AM)
(2 of 4) [CW-16568/2019]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chand Thakuriya For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 07/11/2019
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the trial Court whereby the application submitted by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 16 & 17 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the family property before the trial Court.
During pendency of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 16 & 17 which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 21.08.2019. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff challenging the order dated 21.08.2019.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in not allowing the application submitted by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that if the application for amendment is allowed then nature of the suit will not be changed and prayed for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Bhatia Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia reported in (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 87 in which para 12 has held as under:-
"12. This being the position, the case which was sought to be set up in the proposed amendment (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 02:09:11 AM) (3 of 4) [CW-16568/2019] was an elaboration of what was stated in the written statement. The High Court has in the exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 227 of the Constitution entered upon the merits of the case which was sought to be set up by the Appellant in the amendment. This is impermissible. Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction Under Article 227. In Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., this Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court Under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or tribunal and it is not open to it to review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal has passed an order. The Trial Court had in the considered exercise of its jurisdiction allowed the amendment of the written statement Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere Under Article 227. Allowing the amendment would not amount to the withdrawal of an admission contained in the written statement (as submitted by the Respondent) since the amendment sought to elaborate upon an existing defence. It would also be necessary to note that it was on 21.09.2013 that an amendment of the plaint was allowed by the Trial Court, following which the Appellant had filed a written statement to the amended plaint incorporating its defence. The amendment would cause no prejudice to the Plaintiff."
6. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the trial Court while dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 16 & 17 has rightly exercised its discretion; secondly, the amendment which was sought by the petitioner-plaintiff relates much prior to the filing of the suit and in the opinion of this Court also, if the amendment sought is allowed then nature of the suit will be changed; thirdly, in the facts and (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 02:09:11 AM) (4 of 4) [CW-16568/2019] circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /103 (Downloaded on 07/06/2021 at 02:09:11 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)