Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 1560
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Dinesh Maheshwari
Darshan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Lal Singh - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1219 of 1995
Decided On : 07/14/2005
Mr. V.N. Kalla, for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.L. Jain, for the Respondent No. 1.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of amendment under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, and the court's discretion in allowing or disallowing amendments based on the nature of the suit and potential prejudice to the parties.
Headnote:
Amendment - Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Section 88, Section 53 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the amendment sought under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the opposition to the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court analyzed the nature of the suit, the proposed amendment, and the implications of allowing the amendment. Key legal provisions such as the scope of amendment under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the Code of Civil Procedure were considered in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act seeking a declaratory decree of their share in joint tenancy with the defendant Lal Singh. They later sought an amendment in the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which was opposed by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment sought did not change the nature of the suit and was necessary for the just decision of the case. The court concluded that the order allowing the amendment was passed illegally and with material irregularities.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the suit, the compatibility of the amendment with the original suit, and the potential prejudice to the defendants. The court also considered the timing of the application for amendment and the implications of allowing the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the scope of amendment under the relevant legal provisions, the impact of the proposed amendment on the nature of the suit, and the potential prejudice to the parties involved.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision to disallow the amendment under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The petitioners Darshan Singh, Makhan Singh, Gurnam Singh and Mastan Singh filed a suit under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (“the Act” for short) arraying the respondent Lal Singh as the defendant on 26.08.1985 which was pending before the Assistant Collector, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh as Suit No. 90/1987. The petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking amendment in the plaint. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Sangaria by the order dated 20.01.1992. This order dated 21.01.1992 was challenged in Revision No TA/43/92. Ganganagar by the defendant Lal Singh before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and the learned Member of the Board, by the order dated 06.01.1995, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 20.01.1992. The plaintiff-petitioners have submitted this writ petition challenging the said order dated 06.01.1995.
2. Brief facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioners filed the aforesaid suit for a declaratory decree of their share in joint tenancy with the defendant Lal Singh to the extent of 20 bighas of land in Chaks No. 13 MKS, 14 MKS and 16 MKS. The plaintiffs claimed their right on the averments that the plaintiffs alongwith their deceased brother Gurdev Singh, purchased agricultural land of 13 bighas in Khasara No. 160 min-1 and 7 bighas in Khasara No. 3 min-1 situated at Shergarh from Hira Singh son of Bika Singh by way of a registered sale-deed dated 09.03.1960. Gurdev Singh had expired unmarried and the plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 were his heirs. According to the plaintiffs, at the time of Chakbandi, murabba numbers and kila numbers of all the Khasara were changed and as a consequence thereof the land of aforesaid Khasara No. 160 and Khasara No. 3 was recorded in Chaks No. 13, 14 MKS and 16 MKS. The plaintiffs stated the details of land in Chaks No. 13 MKS, 14 MKS and 16 MKS and claimed that they were in possession of 20 bighas of land but either because of mistake or because of conspiracy of the defendant, the land was recorded in the name of defendant Lal Singh and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaratory decree that they were joint tenants with the defendant in the land situated in Chaks No. 13, 14 and 16 MKS measuring 20 bighas and the present entry in the revenue record deserve to be corrected. According to the plaintiffs their rights have been affected because of entering of their khatedari land in the name of the defendant and the defendant could derive any undue advantage and hence the suit was necessitated. It was stated that the defendant was asked very many times to get the record corrected but he refused on 19.08.1985 and hence the cause for filing the suit arose. The plaintiffs prayed for a declaratory decree as noticed hereinbefore.
3. The written statement filed by the defendant-respondent No. 1 has not been produced on record by either of the parties, however, it appears from the facts available on record that the suit was put to contest by the defendant Lal Singh and the issues were framed and thereafter evidence of the
plaintiff-petitioners was completed and the suit was posted for evidence of the defendant-respondent (as stated in Para 7 of the reply by the respondent No. 1).
4. An application seeking amendment in the plaint was filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court on or about 09.05.1991 (Annexure-R2/2). The plaintiffs stated in the application that they had filed a suit on 26.08.1985 under Section 88 of the Act and some evidence of the plaintiffs has also been recorded but there were some factual and legal mistakes in the plaint which were required to be amended. Thereafter, the amendment sought for has been stated in the manner that in the heading of the plaint, alongwith Section 88, Section 53 was also to be added and alongwith defendant Lal Singh, other defendants Nand Singh, Chand Singh and Gopal Singh a
