[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tilok Chand Vaishnav vs Laxman Das Vaishnav ... on 17 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13441]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9622/2025
Tilok Chand Vaishnav S/o Sh. Ambalal Vaishnav Saad, Aged
About 47 Years, R/o Keshav Nagar, Near Keshav Kutiya, Phalodi,
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Laxman Das Vaishnav S/o Sh. Ambalal Vaishnav Saad, Aged
About 44 Years, R/o Balaji Ka Mandir, Darjio Ki Gali, Phalodi,
District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
17/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendant assailing the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the
Civil Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur in Civil Original suit no.
23/2023, whereby the application preferred by the respondent-
plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.
has been partly allowed and amendment to the extent of addition
of Para 5-A in the plaint has been permitted.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent-plaintiff has
instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against
the petitioner-defendant on the basis of an alleged oral tenancy.
The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement
denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, and asserting
ownership and possession over the suit property.
3. After framing of issues and at the stage when the matter was
posted for plaintiff's evidence, the respondent has filed an
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:15:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13441] (2 of 5) [CW-9622/2025]
application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking amendment
in the plaint. The trial court, vide order dated 17.04.2025, partly
allowed the application and permitted incorporation of para 5-A
while rejecting the remaining proposed amendments (Para 5-B,
5-C & 5-D). Hence, this writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
amendment permitted by the trial court changes the nature of the
suit from one for eviction based on tenancy to a suit for
possession based on alleged encroachment, which is
impermissible in law. It is further contended that the amendment
has been sought after commencement of trial without satisfying
the requirement of due diligence and therefore, could not have
been allowed.
6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs.
Narayanaswamy & Sons. and others reported in (2009) 10
Supreme Court Cases 84.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported
the impugned order and submits that amendment permitted by
the trial court is limited in nature and has been allowed only to
bring on record subsequent events which are necessary for
effective adjudication of the dispute.
8. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal
(Bindal) & Ors. (2024 INSC 726).
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:15:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13441] (3 of 5) [CW-9622/2025]
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties, perused the material available on record and gone
through the judgments cited at the Bar.
10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial court
has dealt with each of the proposed amendments separately.
While rejecting the amendments sought to be introduced by way
of paras 5-B, 5-C and 5-D on the ground that they would alter the
nature of the suit, the trial court has permitted only para 5-A to be
incorporated, holding the same to be necessary in view of the
subsequent events alleged to have occurred during pendency of
the suit.
11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
amendment changes the nature of the suit is not borne out from
the record. The original suit is founded on the rights of the parties
qua the suit property. By way of the amendment, the plaintiff has
merely sought to bring on record an alleged subsequent act of
encroachment over a portion of the same property during
pendency of the proceedings. The main controversy between the
parties, namely, their respective rights and possession over the
suit property, remains unchanged.
12. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Revajeetu
Builders and Developers's case (supra) is misplaced. In the
said judgment, while laying down the factors to be taken into
consideration for allowing or rejecting amendments, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also held that amendments which are
necessary for determining the real controversy between the
parties should be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice or
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:15:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13441] (4 of 5) [CW-9622/2025]
prejudice. In the present case, the trial court has applied the said
principles in their correct perspective by declining those
amendments which would alter the nature of the suit and allowing
only a limited amendment relatable to subsequent events. Thus,
in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order is in consonance
with, and not contrary to, the law laid down in Revajeetu Builders
(supra).
13. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal @
Pappu's case (supra) wherein, while stating the limitations
governing amendments after commencement of trial, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reiterated that such application should be
ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper
adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice
to the other side.
14. In the present case, the amendment permitted by the
learned trial court is confined to incorporation of an alleged
subsequent development during the pendency of the suit and does
not introduce a new or inconsistent case. The nature and
character of the original lis remain unchanged. Thus, the said
judgment lends support to the view taken by the learned trial
court.
15. The objection regarding lack of due diligence is also without
merit in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the
amendment relates to events alleged to have occurred during the
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:15:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13441] (5 of 5) [CW-9622/2025]
pendency of the suit and, therefore, could not have been
incorporated earlier despite exercise of due diligence.
16. Further, no such prejudice has been demonstrated by the
petitioner which cannot be adequately compensated by affording
opportunity to file additional pleadings or lead evidence in
rebuttal.
17. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against an interlocutory order, is limited.
Unless the order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error, interference is not warranted.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find
any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order
dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned trial court so as to
warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
19. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
20. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined
to the adjudication of the present writ petition and shall not
influence the merits of the case pending before the learned trial
court.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
204-/Inder//-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 06:15:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
