Shri Balaji Girh Nirman Sahkari Samiti vs Ananat Shri Sukh Ram Ji Trust And Anr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10200 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shri Balaji Girh Nirman Sahkari Samiti vs Ananat Shri Sukh Ram Ji Trust And Anr. ... on 29 November, 2023

[2023:RJ-JD:41312]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 931/2018

Shri    Balaji    Girh     Nirman        Sahkari       Samiti        Limited   Through
Authorized Signatory Shri Naresh Jhamnani S/, R/o Balaji Colony
Borawar Road Makrana District Nagur Rajasthan
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       Ananat Shri Sukh Ram Ji Trust Ram Dham Village Post
         Birai Tehsil Bhopalgarh Through Vijay Kumar S/o, By
         Caste Agrwal R/o Ajmer Road Jodhpur At Present Ram
         Chowki Birai Tehsil Bhopalgarh.
2.       Hari Vallabh S/o Sita Ram Chokhada, R/o Makrana District
         Nagaur Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr H.R. Soni
For Respondent(s)             :     None present



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Judgment / Order (oral)

29/11/2023

1. The instant petition was filed in the year 2018 with the

following prayer:

It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that the

Hon'ble Court may be very graciously enough allowed this

writ petition by appropriate order or direction, the impugned

order dated 07.11.2017 (Annexure 7) passed by the

Additional District Judge Parbatsar in Civil Original Suit

No.47/2005- Balaji Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Vs Ananat

Sukh Ram Trust on 07.11.2017 may kindly be quashed and

set aside and the decision on the applications one filed

[2023:RJ-JD:41312] (2 of 2) [CW-931/2018]

seeking amendment by the petitioner be reversed. The

amendment application be allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent No.2 is still proceeding ex parte before the court below

and therefore, service on him be dispensed with.

3. Ordered accordingly.

4. None appears on behalf of respondent No.1, hence, it is

justifiable to assume that there is no objection to this petition

being allowed.

5. Be that as it may, having seen the impugned order dated

07.11.2017, by which application of the applicant-plaintiff for

seeking correction in the cause-title of his plaint was summarily

rejected, without due application of mind; I am of the view that

the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. That aside, a perusal of the application seeking the

amendment reflects that the same was purely clerical description

of the parties and would not interfere in any manner qua evidence

to be adduced or change of facts narrated either in the respective

pleadings. Said amendment, since does not change scope of the

suit, I see no reason why the application for aforesaid amendment

be not allowed.

7. The order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Additional District

Judge Parbatsar in Civil Suit No.47/2005, on the amendment

application filed by the petitioner, is set aside. The amendment

application is allowed. The trial court to proceed accordingly.

(ARUN MONGA),J 81-MMA/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)