Rajasthan High Court
Hanuman Sahay Sharma S/O Late Shri ... vs Naval Gurjar S/O Shri Nathu Gurjar on 27 August, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7786/2022
Hanuman Sahay Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhairu Ram Urf Bhairu
Lal, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Village Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil
Jamwaramgah, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner/plaintiff/Landloard
Versus
1. Naval Gurjar S/o Shri Nathu Gurjar, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Village Bhanpur, Tehsil Jamwaramgah, District Jaipur.
------Respondent No.1/Defendant/Tenant
2. Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Village Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil Jamwaramgah,
District Jaipur.
----Respondent No.2/Applicant
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7460/2022
Hanuman Sahay Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhairu Ram Alias Bhairu
Lal, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Gram Bhaanpur Kalan, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner/Plaintiff/Landlord
Versus
1. Dungarsi S/o Narayan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gram
Bhaanpur Kalan, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
------Respondent No.1/Defendant/Tenant
2. Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Gram Bhaanpur Kalan, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh,
District Jaipur.
----Respondent No.2/Applicant
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7117/2022
Hanuman Sahay Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhairu Ram Allias Bhairu
Lal, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Gram Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner/Plaintiff/Landlord
Versus
1. Prem Shankar Sharma Son Of Sitaram Sharma, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o Gram Bhanpur, Tehsil
(2 of 4) [CW-7786/2022]
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
------Respondent No.1/Defendant/Tenant
2. Babu Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Ramchandra, Aged About
46 Years, R/o Gram Bhanpur Kalan, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
----Respondent No.2/Applicant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Saini
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
27/08/2022
Since, all these three writ petitions share common questions
of facts and law, on the request of learned counsel for the
petitioner, they have been heard together and are being decided
by this common order.
These writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India have been filed challenging the order dated 01.04.2022
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur
in Civil Suits No.190/2017, 180/2017 and 192/2017 whereby,
applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17
read with Section 151 CPC, have been dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner filed the
suits for eviction, possession, mesne profit and permanent
injunction against the respondent/defendant no.1. During their
pendency, he filed the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 read
with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint which have
been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated
01.04.2022, the subject matter of challenge.
(3 of 4) [CW-7786/2022]
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that since the amendment sought would not have
changed the nature of the suits, learned trial Court erred in
dismissing his applications. He, in support of his submission, relies
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of M/s
Chakreshwariwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manohar Lal:
2017(5) SCC 212.
Heard. Considered.
The learned trial Court has dismissed the applications filed
by the petitioner on the premise that the amendment sought by
the petitioner pertains to contents of written statement filed by
the defendant; but, the application was filed at the stage when
case was already fixed for final arguments. It is also observed
therein that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the reasons for such
inordinate delay in moving the applications. This Court has also
gone through the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 6
Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and finds that the same are
bereft of even a whisper of averment explaining the reason for
delay in not filing the applications in time. After the amendment in
the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, its proviso mandates that
no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has
commenced, unless the Court comes to conclusion that in spite of
due diligence, parties could not raise the matter before
commencement of trial. Indisputably, the amendment sought to
be incorporated pertains to contents of reply filed by the
respondents and the application was filed at the stage when case
was already fixed for final arguments. In these circumstances, in
the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has
(4 of 4) [CW-7786/2022]
committed no error in dismissing the applications filed by the
petitioner.
In the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of
M/s Chakreshwariwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it has
been held that an amendment application can be dismissed if it is
not bonafide or suffers from malafide. In the present case, this
Court is not satisfied that the petitioner filed the application
bonafidely as it is bereft of any reason as to why it was not filed
well within time.
In the aforesaid circumstances, these writ petitions being
devoid of merit and are dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/30 & 46-47
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
