Prajapita Brahmakumari ... vs Shri Dhanwantri Seva Samiti
2022 Latest Caselaw 4862 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20428/2019
Prajapita Brahmakumari Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Kishanpole
Bazar, Jaipur Through Manager Sushma Bahan
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Shri Dhanwantri Seva Samiti, Johari Bazar, Jaipur Through
Mantri Shri Purushottam Das Bansal Son Of Shri Gulab Chand
Bansal, Kishori Sadan, Moti Doongari Road, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Smt. Ambika Desai, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

15/07/2022

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-

tenant, challenging the order dated 10.10.2019, whereby

amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 has been

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

proposed amendment which petitioner wanted to bring on record,

had bearing in the matter and subsequent developments which

had come to the notice of the petitioner, were required to be

brought on record.

Learned counsel further submitted that since the application

filed under Order 7 Rule 11 was allowed and finally on appeal

being allowed, the application was revived in the year 2019, as

such, there was no delay on their part to amend the pleadings.

(2 of 3) [CW-20428/2019]

Learned counsel further submitted that the issue before the

court below is in respect of the bonafide necessity of the

respondent-landlord and petitioner in order to prove availability of

alternative accommodation wanted to bring pleadings on record,

and as such, the court below has committed an error in rejecting

the application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Gajendra Singh

Lodha Vs. Bhanwar Lal Kothari & Ors., 2009 (2) Civil Court

Cases, 482 (Rajasthan).

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the said

judgment, submitted that bonafide requirement of landlord has to

continue, till the final decree is passed and if during pendency of

the proceedings, subsequent evidence point out that the bonafide

necessity, no more exist then amendment should be allowed by

the Court.

Learned counsel-Mr. Amit Gupta appearing for the

respondent submitted that the court below while passing the order

dated 10.10.2019, has not committed any illegality.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issues

were already framed after pleadings were complete and when the

evidence was to be led, at that time the application was filed for

seeking amendment.

Learned counsel submitted that the strict and complete

procedure as provided under Civil Procedure Code is not applicable

in the rent eviction matters as these proceedings are summary in

nature and if this kind of delay tactics will be permitted, then the

applications which are filed for eviction will not be decided.

(3 of 3) [CW-20428/2019]

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for

the parties and perused the material available on record.

This Court, finds that the eviction application filed by the

respondent was initially filed in the year 2005, however, on appeal

being allowed, to entertain the application for eviction, the court

below after recording the evidence of both the parties, fixed the

case for final hearing and in different dates were given to argue

the matter finally.

This Court finds that if such kind of amendment will be

allowed at the fag end of the case, the fate of the case will never

be decided.

This Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the

court below, and as such, no interference is required.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

Ramesh Vaishnav /86

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)