Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shiv Charan Singh vs Ashok Kumar (2023/Rjjd/003240) on 30 January, 2023
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2023/RJJD/003240]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 787/2023
Shiv Charan Singh S/o Shri Man Singh, Aged About 55 Years,
Residing At Behind Idbi Bank, In Front Of Dairy, Water Mill Road,
Kankroli, District Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Himmat Lal, Aged About 57 Years,
Residing At Laxmi Nayak, In Front Of General Post Office,
Kankroli, Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
For Respondent :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order 30/01/2023
1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order or direction:
(i) The impugned order dated 17.09.2022 (annex-1) passed by Ld. Family Court, Rajsamand in Civil Suit No. 114/2017 (34/2016) titled as Ashok Kumar Vs Shiv Charan Singh may kindly be quashed and set-aside;
(ii) The application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the petitioner (Ann.4) for amendment of written statement may kindly be allowed;
(iii) The record of Civil Suit No. 114/2017 (34/2016) titled as Ashok Kumar Vs Shiv Charan Singh pending before the learned Family Court, Rajsamand may also kindly be called for, and
(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the plaintiff-respondent preferred a suit for eviction, payment of arrears of rent and (Downloaded on 01/02/2023 at 11:34:20 PM) [2023/RJJD/003240] (2 of 3) [CW-787/2023] damages against the defendant-petitioner, being Civil Suit No. 114/2017. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant filed his written statement, denying the averments made by the plaintiff- respondent in his plaint.
2.1 That the learned Court below framed the issues and the trial commenced. In the meanwhile, the petitioner-defendant preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order; which is under challenge before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below arbitrarily dismissed the aforementioned application preferred by the petitioner-defendant and erred in holding that allowing the same would amount to changing the nature of the suit itself, and that the same was preferred after an inordinate delay.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while the plaintiff-respondent is the dominus-litus of the suit, in order to bring his complete defence on the record, the application so preferred by him deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. And that, the learned Court below is vested with the power under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to allow alteration/amendment in the pleadings, and looking into the facts of the present case, the same ought to have been exercised.
5. Heard. Perused the record of the case. (Downloaded on 01/02/2023 at 11:34:20 PM)
[2023/RJJD/003240] (3 of 3) [CW-787/2023]
6. This Court observes that the learned Court below vide the impugned order, dated 17.09.2022, has recorded a categorical finding that there is an inordinate and unjustified delay on the part of the defendant-petitioner in preferring the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Furthermore, the said application merely states that such information was not available to him earlier.
7. This Court also observes that the trial was instituted in the year 2016; and the aforesaid application was preferred on 10.03.2022, after a period of about six years, and when the cross-examination of the witnesses was also complete in the trial before the learned Court below.
8. This Court further observes that the petitioner has not been able to proffer any explanation for the gross delay, in preferring the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and that too at such a belated stage of the trial.
9. This Court therefore does not find any ground made out to warrant its interference in the impugned order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the learned Court below.
10. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the pending stay application also stands dismissed.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J 131-Sanjay/-
(Downloaded on 01/02/2023 at 11:34:20 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)