Rajasthan High Court
Nathu Son Of Gulab vs Lakhi Prasad Son Of Nathu Singh on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12095/2022
Nathu Son Of Gulab, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of
Udaipurwati, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner/Defendant
Versus
1. Lakhi Prasad Son Of Nathu Singh, Resident Of Ward No.
13, Near Old Sabji Mandi, Udaipurwati, Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Gopi Son Of Gulab, Resident Of Udaipurwati, Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3. Raju Son Of Gulab, Resident Of Udaipurwati, Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4. Sub-Registrar, Udaipurwati, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
5. Land Holder Through Tehsildar, Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
---Respondent/Defendants
6. Premlata Devi Wife Of Nathu Singh, Resident Of Ward No.
13, Near Old Sabji Mandi, Udaipurwati, Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
7. Sunita Daughter Of Nathu Singh, Resident Of Ward No.
13, Near Old Sabji Mandi, Udaipurwati, Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
8. Neetu Daughter Of Nathu Singh, Resident Of Ward No.
13, Near Old Sabji Mandi, Udaipurwati, Tehsil
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
9. Kala Daughter Of Nathu Singh, Resident Of Ward No. 13,
Near Old Sabji Mandi, Udaipurwati, Tehsil Udaipurwati,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Proforma Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Lal Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
12/09/2022
This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by
(2 of 3) [CW-12095/2022]
learned Civil Judge, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu in civil suit
No.50/2018 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent
No.1/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner and the
respondents No.2 to 9 seeking cancellation of the release deed
dated 05.10.2015, declaration and permanent injunction. During
its pendency, the petitioner/defendant No.3 filed an application
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written
statement. The application was dismissed by the learned trial
court vide order dated 27.05.2022, the subject matter of
challenge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the written
statement came to be filed by him under undue pressure of the
co-defendants and to reveal the true controversy, it was
incumbent upon the learned trial court to have allowed the
application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section
151 CPC. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied
upon a judgment of this Court in case of Usman Vs. Sita Ram-
RLW 1992(2) page 506.
Heard. Considered.
While dismissing the application, the learned trial court has
recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner filed an
application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC along
with the written statement remaining present in the trial court on
15.12.2018 whereupon, while setting aside the ex-parte
proceeding against him, the written statement was taken on
record. In these circumstances, learned trial court has disbelieved
the averment made by him in application under Order 6 Rule 17
(3 of 3) [CW-12095/2022]
CPC that the written statement was prepared on the blank papers
signed by him under the state of intoxication. Even otherwise also,
it is trite law that the admissions made in the pleadings cannot be
permitted to be resiled by a party by way of amendment therein,
which would be obvious consequence of allowing the application
filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Usman Vs. Sita
Ram (Supra); but the same has no applicability in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
The learned trial court has passed the order dated
27.05.2022 in its judicious discretion based on cogent material on
record which does not warrant any interference of this Court under
its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
CHARU SONI /72
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
