Rajasthan High Court
Raj Kapoor S/O Hari Singh vs Chiddhi Alias Chiddu Singh S/O ... on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
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.
(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.
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
