Rajasthan High Court
Kajod S/O Shri Nangram vs Muli W/O Gordhan (2024:Rj-Jp:14599) on 22 March, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:14599]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4213/2024
Kajod S/o Shri Nangram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Thunidhirajpura, Tehsil Lalsot District Dausa
----Petitioner/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Muli W/o Gordhan, R/o Shivsinghpura, Tehsil Lalsot
District Dausa (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs
1/1. Kallu S/o Gordhan, R/o Shivsinghpura, Tehsil Lalsot
District Dausa
1/2. Bacchi W/o Shankar, R/o Amrabad, Tehsil Ramgarh
Pachwara District Dausa
1/3. Lali Gopal, R/o Marmal Ka Baans, Tehsil Ramgarh
Pachwara District Dausa
----Respondents/Defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Rana
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
22/03/2024
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order
dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Lalsot, District Dausa (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Suit
No.12/2014 whereby, while allowing an application filed by the
respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as "the
defendants") under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, three additional issues
have been framed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff (for
short "the plaintiff") filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of
registered will dated 28.10.2013 executed by late Shri Govinda in
favour the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (for brevity "the
defendant No.1) and permanent injunction claiming himself to be
nephew of the deceased Govinda. In the written statement filed by
[2024:RJ-JP:14599] (2 of 3) [CW-4213/2024]
the defendant No.1, in addition to claiming herself to be sister of
the deceased Govinda, it was claimed that the plaintiff has non
locus to file the suit as he has no relationship whatsoever with the
deceased Govinda, he has already filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction with regard to the subject agricultural land
making reference to the mutation opened in her favour on the
basis of the subject will and the suit was undervalued. The learned
trial Court framed two issues including relief. The issue No.1 is to
the effect as to whether the will dated 28.10.2013 executed in
favour of the defendant No.1 was forged and fabricated to cheat
the plaintiff and was liable to be cancelled. On an application filed
by the defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, the learned trial
Court has, vide order impugned dated 06.03.2024, framed three
additional issues based on the objections taken by them in their
written statement.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits
that on the one hand, the learned trial Court has observed that
the suit is nine years old and after remaining pending for final
arguments, the application has been filed with inordinate delay
while, on the other hand, the same has been allowed. He submits
that the inordinate delay in preferring the application in itself was
sufficient reason warranting its rejection. In support of his
submissions, learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court
dated 06.07.2009 passed in SB Civil Revision Petition
No.189/2009: Subhan Khan Vs. Lrs. Of late Pukhe Khan &
Anr. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the
order dated 06.03.2024 be quashed and set aside and the
application filed by the defendants be dismissed.
[2024:RJ-JP:14599] (3 of 3) [CW-4213/2024]
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, the additional issues framed by the learned trial
Court are based on the objections raised in the written statement
and are necessary for just and effective disposal of the
controversy involved in the matter. Further, despite observing that
the application is inordinately delayed, the same has been allowed
by the learned trial Court on an undertaking furnished by the
learned counsel for the defendants that in support of the proposed
amendment, no further evidence is required. In view thereof, this
Court finds no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order
passed by the learned trial Court based on material on record in
exercise of its judicious discretion.
The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff in case of Subhan Khan (supra) is of no help to him.
Therein, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5
CPC after twenty years from the date of closure of the evidence of
the defendants at the stage when the matter was fixed for final
arguments, was dismissed by the learned trial Court. This Court,
in its revisional jurisdiction, declined to interfere in the order
dismissing the application. However, in the present case, while
allowing the application filed by the defendants, the learned trial
Court has assigned cogent reason as to why the delay in filing it
was not fatal.
Resultantly, this civil writ petition is dismissed being devoid
of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/59
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
