Rajasthan High Court
Smt Leela Bhatiya W/O Late Shri ... vs Sanjay Bhatiya S/O Late Shri ... on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17754/2022
Smt. Leela Bhatiya W/o Late Shri Chunni Lal (Senior Citizen),
Aged About 82 Years, Resident Of 218, Ram Gali No. 1,
Rajapark, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sanjay Bhatiya S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal Bhatiya, Aged
About 56 Years, Resident Of 159, Vakeel Colony, Hiran
Magri, Udaipur (Rajasthan) Working At Present Manager,
L.I.C. Of India, Indoor.
2. Dinesh Bhatiya S/o Late Sh. Vhunni Lal Bhatiya, Aged
About 50 Years, Resident Of 218, Ramgali No. 1,
Rajapark, Jaipur.
3. Praveen Bhatiya S/o Late Sh. Chunni Lal Bhatiya,
Resident Of C/o Dell, Bangalore, Presently R/o 9 First
Cross, Maharapali, Bangalore.
4. Smt. Poonam Bhatiya W/o Sh. Vikas Bhatiya D/o Late Sh.
Chunni Lal Bhatiya, Resident Of House No. 171/B,
Ramgali No. 3, Rajapark, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parmanand Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
15/12/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that
the petitioner had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
for seeking permission to amend the written statement.
Learned counsel submitted that Civil Suit No.123/2004 was
filed for eviction, permanent injunction and compensation, by the
present petitioner against the respondent and the said suit was
decreed by the Civil Court by judgment & decree dated
(2 of 3) [CW-17754/2022]
30.03.2016 and appeal filed by the respondent-Sanjay Bhatia,
also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court on 27.04.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the
dispute in Civil Suit No.83/2018 was in respect of the same
property, in which already a judgment & decree was passed by the
Civil Court on 30.03.2016, the petitioner by moving an application
sought amendment in the written statement and wanted to
introduce the pleadings relating to the judgment & decree passed
by the competent Civil Court.
Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has wrongly
rejected the application of the petitioner and as such, the
petitioner had to file a Review Petition before the Court below and
the same was also came to be dismissed on 22.09.2022.
Learned counsel submitted that only on account of pendency
of the suit, the amendment sought by the petitioner, could not
have been denied.
Learned counsel further submitted that the nature of suit
was also not changed by seeking amendment in the pleadings and
as such, the Court below has committed serious illegality in
rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking amendment in
the written statement.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner.
This Court finds that the Court below while considering the
application of the petitioner has come to the conclusion that the
description of the property has already been given in the written
statement, as filed by the petitioner and further the Court below
has come to the conclusion that certain judgment/decree in
(3 of 3) [CW-17754/2022]
respect of the same property, did not have much relevance to
amend the pleadings.
This Court finds that the judgment which is sought to be
placed by way of amendment in the written statement, if it is in
the shape of a decree or order, the same may not be necessarily
to be placed on record by inserting in the written statement and
seeking amendment in the pleadings.
This Court finds that the Revision Petition filed by the
petitioner has also been considered by the Court below and the
Court below has rightly come to conclusion that there is no
apparent error on face of record in passing the order dated
22.09.2022.
This Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the
Court below while passing the order impugned.
The writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Ramesh Vaishnav /86
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
