Gram Panchayat, Dhavadiya vs Kalulal
2021 Latest Caselaw 18041 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15967/2021

1. Gram Panchayat, Dhavadiya, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur Through Its Sarpanch.

2. Vaalchand Meena S/o Shri Kuraji, Aged About 46 Years, Gingchikhera, Sorada, Post Palodra, District Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Kalulal S/o Modaji Patel, Aged About 54 Years, Dhavadiya, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

2. Padamalal S/o Modaji Patel, Aged About 51 Years, Chavadiya, Tehsil Sarado, District Udaipur.

3. Mahendra Kumara S/o Modaji Patel, Aged About 49 Years, Dhavadiya, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

4. Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat Dhavadiya, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Rajesh Shah



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Order

01/12/2021

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.09.2021,

whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sarada, Udaipur

(hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') has allowed the

respondents' amendment application dated 08.07.2021 to be filed

under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short

the 'Code').

2. The facts narrated briefly are, that the respondents -

plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction

on 26.03.2021.

                                          (2 of 3)                      [CW-15967/2021]



3.   On   08.07.2021,       the     respondents          -       plaintiffs   filed   an

amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and

stated that due to inadvertence, they have wrongly inscribed area

of the land covered by the 'patta' in question as 900 square feet

whereas the correct area is 1800 square feet.

4. The application was opposed by the present petitioners

(defendants No.1 & 2) by way of filing a reply on 13.08.2021, inter

alia, stating that the error in question cannot be said to be a

bonafide error/mistake.

5. The trial Court allowed the respondents' application vide its

order dated 01.09.2021.

6. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that

trial Court has committed an error of law in accepting respondents'

amendment application.

7. He argued that the plaintiffs had themselves shown the area

of the plot to be 900 square feet in the plaint and it cannot be said

to be a bonafide error, as in the grab of seeking correction in line

No.11 & 22 of page No.2 as '1800 square feet' in place of 900

square feet, they are seeking to grab more land.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the

case of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jodhpur Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in 2015 (1) DNJ (Raj.)

222 and submitted that the facts of the present case are almost

identical and in light of this judgment, the amendment in question

cannot be allowed.

9. Concededly, no written statement had been filed by the

present petitioners (defendants), when the impugned order was

passed by the trial Court. Hence, issues have not yet been framed.

(3 of 3) [CW-15967/2021]

10. That apart, a perusal of the plaint and the averments in the

amendment application clearly reveals that the plaintiffs had

sought to correct inadvertent/typographical error in line No.11 &

22 of page No.2. Such alteration is not going to change the tenor

of the plaint and substance of the reliefs claimed. What the

plaintiffs had sought is simply a correction/ alteration in the plaint

and the same is not likely to change the nature and scope of the

suit.

11. So far as judgment of this Court in the case of LIC of India

(supra) is concerned, the facts therein clearly show that the case

had a chequered history and the applicant therein had sought

amendment in relation to measurement/area of the plot, at a

much later stage, obviously after the issues were framed whereas

the correction in the present case has been sought almost

immediately after institution of the suit. The judgment relied upon

by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, thus, clearly

distinguishable.

12. The suit is at very initial stage and even the written

statement was not filed by the defendants, when the application

was allowed.

13. This Court does not find any error or illegality in the order

dated 01.09.2021, which has been challenged by the petitioner.

14. The writ petition, therefore, fails.

15. Stay application, too, stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

58-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)