Daulat Singh Rajawat Son Of Shri ... vs T. And T. Motors Pvt. Ltd. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1702 Raj/2

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1702 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 7 February, 2023

Rajasthan High Court

Daulat Singh Rajawat Son Of Shri ... vs T. And T. Motors Pvt. Ltd. ... on 7 February, 2023

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

[2023/RJJP/001960]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11663/2022

Daulat Singh Rajawat Son Of Shri Devi Singh Rajawat, Aged
About 41 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 08, Chhilara Ki Dhani,
Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Jaipur Pin 302015 (Rajasthan).
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
T. And T. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Anand Fort, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur
Through Authorized Representative Shri Mahesh Kumar Asodia,
Registered Office- G-A-2, Block No. 01 Vistar, Mohan Co-Oprative
Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.
                                                                 ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5183/2020 Daulat Singh Rajawat Son Of Shri Devi Singh Rajawat, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Plot No. 08, Chhilara Ki Dhani, Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Jaipur Pin 302015 (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus T. And T. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Anand Fort, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur Through Authorized Representative Shri Mahesh Kumar Asodia. Registered Office G-A-2, Block No. 01, Vistar, Mohan Co-Oprative Inudstrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110044.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

07/02/2023

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner

(hereinafter to be referred as 'Defendant') challenging the order

dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned trial court whereby the

[2023/RJJP/001960] (2 of 4) [CW-11663/2022]

application filed on behalf of the respondent (hereinafter to be

referred as 'Plaintiff') under Order 6 Rule 17 was allowed and the

application filed on behalf of the defendant under Section 151 CPC

was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for

recovery against the defendant. During pendency of the suit

proceedings the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17

for amendment in the suit which was allowed by the learned trial

court and the defendant has also filed an application under Section

151 CPC for correction in the affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2 which

was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated

03.12.2019. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed by the

defendant challenging the order dated 03.12.2019.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that

the matter has already been fixed for plaintiff's evidence by the

learned trial court and since the trial has already been started, the

amendment sought by the plaintiff cannot be allowed. Counsel

further submits that the facts for amendment in the plaint were

very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing of

the suit, therefore, he cannot be allowed to amend the suit/plaint.

Counsel further submits that the rejoinder filed on behalf of the

plaintiff before the learned trial court has already been rejected.

Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has wrongly

rejected the application submitted on behalf of the defendant

under Section 151 CPC.

In support of the contention counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

[2023/RJJP/001960] (3 of 4) [CW-11663/2022]

Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr. reported in 2009 AIR

(SC) 1433.

Counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the writ petitions and

submitted that the matter is fixed for recording the evidence of

the plaintiff and the defendant has ample opportunity to file

amended written statement. Counsel further submits that while

allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment in

the suit/plaint, no prejudice has been caused to the defendant.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Life Insurance

Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited

and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256, wherein it has been

held as under:-

23 . This Court has repeatedly held that the power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may be appropriately exercised at any stage in the interests of justice, notwithstanding the law of limitation. In this behalf, in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors.,: (1974) 2 SCC 393, this Court held thus:

22......The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court.

29. In Pankaja and Anr. v. Yellappa (dead) by lrs. and Ors.,: (2004) 6 SCC 415, this Court held that it was in the discretion of the court to allow an application Under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint even where the relief sought to be added by amendment was allegedly barred by limitation. The Court noticed that there was no absolute Rule that the amendment

[2023/RJJP/001960] (4 of 4) [CW-11663/2022]

in such a case should not be allowed. It was pointed out that the court's discretion in this regard depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and has to be exercised on a judicial evaluation thereof. It would be apposite to notice the observations of this Court in this pronouncement in extenso. The principles were laid down by this Court thus:

12. So far as the court's jurisdiction to allow an amendment of pleadings is concerned, there can be no two opinions that the same is wide enough to permit amendments even in cases where there has been substantial delay in filing such amendment applications. This Court in numerous cases has held that the dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation, therefore, if the facts of the case so permit, it is always open to the court to allow applications in spite of the delay and laches in moving such amendment application."

These writ petitions filed by the defendant deserve to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, by allowing the amendment in

the suit by the learned trial court the nature of the suit has not

been changed and the defendant can also file the amended written

statement in view of the order passed by the learned trial court;

secondly, by allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed

on behalf of the plaintiff no prejudice has been caused to the

defendant as the defendant can also file the amended written

statement and lastly, in view of the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Life Insurance Corporation

of India (supra), no case is made out for interference by this court

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.