Parasmal Ji Kocheta S/O Ugamraj Ji ... vs Kailashchand Ji Khandelwal S/O ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1422 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 730/2020

Parasmal Ji Kocheta S/o Ugamraj Ji Kocheta, Aged About 58
Years, Resident Of Dev Dongri Road, Oswalo Mohalla, Madanganj
Kishangarh Distt. Ajmer Second Address M/s K.k. Fashion, G-13,
Shri Chandraprabhu Complex, Sabji Mandi, Oswalli Mohalla,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer Third Address M/s The
Vardhman    Mobile     World,       Below       Uco     Bank,    Station   Road,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
Kailashchand Ji Khandelwal S/o Late Pyarelal Ji Khandelwal,
Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Tata Nivas, Azad Nagar, Near
Water Tank, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Aman Pareek
For Respondent(s)         :



                   HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

                                     Order

09/02/2021

This Special Appeal Writ has been filed against the order

dated 15.09.2020 SB CWP No. 5264/2020 (Parasmal Ji Kocheta

vs. Kailashchand Ji Khandelwal) vide which the petition of the

appellant has been dismissed, challenging the order dated

28.02.2020 of Rent Tribunal, Kishangarh whereby two applications

of the appellant for amendment in Order VI Rule 17 of CPC have

been dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

material made available on record.

(2 of 3) [SAW-730/2020]

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that amendment

in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings

which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real

question in controversy between the parties. The desired

amendments are also essential to determine the alleged bona fide

necessity of the landlord. Further, the desired amendments in the

written statement of the appellant are quite essential because the

tenant appellant will not be able to produce the material evidence

in absence of the pleadings. The Rent Tribunal has dismissed the

applications of the appellant in casual manner and Hon'ble Single

Judge has not rightly considered the contentions of the appellant.

Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Heard. Considered.

It is true that as per the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of

CPC, amendment in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage if

such amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the

real question in controversy between the parties but at the same

time, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial

has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in

spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter

before the commencement of trial.

Undisputedly, both the applications for amendment in the

written statement were filed by the tenant appellant after the

matter was listed for leading evidence of the petitioner and last

opportunity was granted to him at the cost of Rs. 1000/-. Further,

the proposed amendment is related to the events which have

taken place on 24.06.2004 for which amendment has been sought

after 15 years. Thus, it cannot be said that in spite of due

diligence, he could not have raised the matter before the

(3 of 3) [SAW-730/2020]

commencement of trial. Hence, the proposed amendment cannot

be allowed in view of above mandatory legal provisions.

All the contentions of appellant have been rightly dealt with

by the Rent Tribunal in detail and in turn by the learned Single

Judge as well. Thus, we find no reason to interfere in the

impugned judgment, accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

SAHIL SONI /62

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)