Chattisgarh High Court
Ajit Singh Gupta Since Died ... vs Dr. Smt. Pratima Raman on 12 December, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No.780 of 2022
Ajit Singh Gupta since died through his legal heirs
1. Smt. Nilima Gupta W/o. Late Ajit Singh Gupta, aged about 74 years,
2. Prashant Singh Gupta, S/o Late Ajit Singh Gupta, aged about 44 years,
Both above applicant No.1 and 2 are R/o. Aapapura, Kachari Road Durg,
Tehsil and District Durg (CG)
3. Dr.Smt.Sonali Tawar, W/o Dr.Mohit Tawar, aged about 51 years, R/o
Smriti Nagar, Junwani, Tehsil and District Durg (CG)
---- Petitioners/Defendant No.1
Versus
1. Dr.Smt.Pratima Raman W/o. Late N.V. Raman, aged about 85 years,
R/o. Near Khirhani Fatak, Katani, Tehsil and District Katani (M.P.)
2. Ajay Singh Gupta S/o. Late Bahadur Singh Gupta, aged about 78 years,
R/o. 179, Utai Road, Beside Labour Court, Irani Dera, Durg, Tehsil and
District Durg (CG)
---- Defendant No.2
Dr.Vijay Singh Gupta since died through his legal heir
3. Smt.Bharti Gupta W/o. Late Dr.Vijay Singh Gupta, aged about 73 years,
R/o. Aapapura, Kachari Road, Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (CG)
---- Defendant No.3
4. Dr.Smt.Madhu Mahajan W/o. Shri Yateendra Kumar Mahajan, aged
about 73 years, C/o. Ajay Singh Gupta, R/o. 179, Utai Road, Beside
Labour Court, Irani Dera, Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (CG)
---- Defendant No.4
Dr.Smt.Indur Veshvanar W/o. Late Prem Singh, since died through her
legal heirs namely
---- Defendant No.5
5a. Dr.Pradeep Kumar Veshvanar, S/o. Late Prem Singh, aged about 64
years,
5b. Dr.Smt.Vandana Sudheer Dubey, W/o. Dr.Sudheer Dubey, aged about
61 years,
Both above respondents No.5 and 6 are R/o. 13-Juhu Gold Mist,
Gulmohr Road, Juhu, Mumbai, (Maharashtra)
6. Dr.Smt.Leena Jaiswal W/o. Dr.Pramod Jaiswal, aged about 61 years,
R/o. F 01/j, 1574, Haradika Apartment, 13 Main Road, Anna Nagar
(West) Chennai 600040
---- Defendant No.6
7. Smt.Pranati Gupta W/o. Shri Navneet Gupta, aged about 50 years, R/o.
B-40, Paten Nagar Second, Gaziyabad, Uttar Pradesh
---- Defendant No.7
Milind Gupta S/o. Late Dr.Vijay Singh Gupta (since died) through his legal
heirs
---- Defendant No.8
8a. Smt.Grima Gupta W/o. Late Milind Gupta, aged about 38 years, R/o.
Aapapura, Kachhari Road, Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (CG)
8b. Ku.Deepika Gupta D/o. Late Milind Gupta, aged about 8 years,
8c. Ku.Lavya Gupta D/o. Late Milind Gupta, aged about 3 years
Both above respondents 8b and 8c being minor are represented through
their mother namely Smt.Garima Gupta W/o Late Milind Gupta, aged
about 38 years, R/o.Aapapura, Kachhari Road, Durg, Tehsil and District
Durg (CG)
9. Skand Gupta S/o. Late Dr.Vijay Singh Gupta, aged about 43 years, R/o.
Aapapura, Kachhari Road, Durg, Tehsil and District Durg (CG)
---- Defendant No.9
10. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Durg, District Durg (CG)
---- Defendant No.10
For Petitioner : Mr.Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate
For Res.No.10/State : Mr.Sudhir Sahu, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
12.12.2022
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.12.2022 passed
by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No.25A/2018 in
between Dr.Smt.Pratima Raman v. Ajeet Singh Gupta and others,
whereby the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order 6
Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed.
2. Mr.Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners/legal
representatives of original defendant No.1, would submit that respondent
No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title for the suit property
situated in Khasra No.594/7 area 1.25 acres, also cancellation of orders
of the revenue Courts and for permanent injunction with an averment that
the plaintiff is real sister of Late Randheer Singh Gupta who died
issueless on 30.7.1999 and she is entitled for share in the property of his
deceased brother along with other brothers and sisters. He would further
submit that originally, the suit has been filed on 15.5.2018 and
amendment application has been filed on 14.9.2022, whereby the plaintiff
has changed the nature of suit. Even the application has been filed after
framing of the issues, but no reason has been assigned and subject
amendment is time-barred and against the principles of amendment in
the pleading. He placed reliance in the matter of Vidyabai and others v.
Padmalatha and another reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409 and submits
that for every amendment which has been filed after framing of the issues
and trial has been commenced, the pleading about jurisdictional fact
must be stated. He also placed reliance in the matter of Kenchegowda
(since deceased) by legal representatives v. Siddegowda alias
Motegowda reported in (1994) 4 SCC 294 and submits that the plaintiff
has already based the suit for declaration, so she cannot change the suit
as partition. So, learned counsel prays to allow the instant writ petition
and quash the impugned order.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the
documents annexed with writ petition.
4. Considering the nature of due diligence in the proposed amendment,
certain reason has been given, which is clarificatory in nature to meet out
the due diligence. So, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioners that no due diligence has been averred in the amendment
application is also not applicable and this Court do not find any
substantial change in nature of suit.
5. Initially the plaintiff had sought for declaration of title along with
defendants No.1 to 7 for the suit property and also on the basis of Will for
some portion of the land and by way of present amendment, she has
specifically asserted for separate share and for its partition. So, the
judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in
Kenchegowda (supra) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
6. Having considered the nature of relief sought by the plaintiff on the basis
of relation with deceased brother and proposed amendment which has
been allowed by the impugned order in which the trial Court has minutely
examined the issues and rightly observed that by way of amendment no
prejudice has been caused to other side, the trial Court has not
committed any illegality or infirmity. Only on the ground of delay, the
amendment application cannot be rejected as proposed amendment is to
save the multiplicity of the case in future. So, considering the principles
summarized in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1128, the reasonings assigned by the trial Court for allowing
the amendment is just and reasonable and based on record, in which this
Court do not find any illegality warranting interference.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed in limine. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
B/-
