Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganga Singh vs Smt. Ram Kanwar & Anr on 5 May, 2016
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER :
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4622/2016
Ganga Singh
v/s
Smt. Ram Kanwar and Anr.
Date of Order :: 5.5.2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, for the petitioner/s.
-----
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the respondents under Order XIV, Rule 5 CPC has been allowed and three additional issues have been framed.
The petitioner filed an application seeking grant of probate of a will dated 11.3.2010. The grant of probate was resisted by the respondents / caveators, who are wife and daughter of the testator. Based on the objection raised by the caveators, the trial court framed certain issues. Whereafter, an application under Order XIV, Rule 5 CPC was filed and certain more issues were framed; whereafter, application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking amendment in the reply filed by the respondents, which application was allowed. 2
Pursuant thereto, another application under Order XIV, Rule 5 CPC was filed, which has been accepted by the trial court by order impugned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court committed error in accepting the application filed by the respondents insofar as the third issue framed by the trial court is concerned, inasmuch as, the same was not based on the amendment in the reply and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
It is further submitted that in another proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the Indian Oil Corporation Limited pertaining to the retail outlet situated at property bequeathed by the said Will, this Court directed expeditious disposal of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner. However, on account of repeated applications being filed by the respondents, the trial is getting delay resulting in loss to the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
It is true that out of three issues framed by the trial court by its order dated 4.3.2016, two issues pertained to amendment of the reply permitted by the trial court.
So far as third issue framed is concerned, the same though arises from the pleadings of the parties, has been apparently framed suo moto by the trial court. The framing of issue at any 3 stage of the proceedings suo moto by the court is envisaged under Order XIV, Rule 5 CPC and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any mistake in framing additional issue No.3,by the impugned order. No interference is called for in the order impugned.
So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding delay in the proceedings is concerned, the same appears to be justified in view of the fact that the matter is pending for last over four years and has not proceeded beyond framing of issues.
In view thereof, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings, ensure that unnecessary adjournments are not granted and that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 09 months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the trial court.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
rm/58