HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1375/2020
Raj Kapoor S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 53 Years, Residents Of
Village Garh Thok Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Chiddhi Alias Chiddu Singh S/o Sheoli, Aged About 65
Years, Resident Of Village Garh Thok, Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Yaduvir Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 55 Years,
Resident Of Village Garh Thok Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
3. Hitlar S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of
Village Garh Thok Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 02/08/2021 The matter comes up on an application (1/2021) for extension of stay order passed on 03.02.2020.
In view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299, the interim order passed by this Court requires to be extended within six months, however, the same has not been extended.
(Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:31:12 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-1375/2020] Keeping in view thereof, the interim order would have to be vacated and the same is accordingly vacated.
Learned counsel was heard on merits. An application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff submitting therein that after he filed the suit, certain constructions were made and therefore, he sought an amendment in his suit. The prayer for restoration of the possession is restored. Prior to making such constructions, the said application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 28.11.2019.
Learned counsel further submitted that the constructions were already made prior to filing of the suit and therefore, the amendment ought to have been rejected by the trial Court. Learned counsel further submitted that he has filed the reply and pointed out that the plaintiff had admitted about such constructions.
I have considered the submissions and perused the order passed by the Court.
This Court finds that relying upon the judgments passed from time to time by the Court as well as Apex Court, the trial Court has proceeded to accept the application and has observed that so far as the fact whether the constructions have been made prior to the filing of the suit itself is the subject matter of evidence, which is to be recorded subsequently. Adjudication regarding the same would be a subsequent aspect. However, at the primary stage, an amendment is sought even before framing of issues. As such, no objection can be raised by the defendant. This Court finds that the order being methodical taking into consideration all the aspects, does not warrant any interference. (Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:31:12 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-1375/2020]
The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly
dismissed.
All the pending applications also stand dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J TN/160 (Downloaded on 03/08/2021 at 10:31:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)