1992 Supreme(Raj) 992
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Hanuwant Singh Rawat - Appellant
Versus
M/s Rajputana Automobiles, Ajmer - Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 102 of 1987 -
Decided On : 8-12-1992
Amendment of pleadings should not be allowed where it is not necessary for the just and proper decision of the controversy, where it would completely alter the nature of the suit, where it is not made in good faith, where it would cause irreparable injury to the opposite party, or where it seeks to introduce a new case.
Headnote:
AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 13(1)(A) - COURT'S DISCRETION - DELAY IN FILING AMENDMENT APPLICATION - MALAFIDE INTENT - PREJUDICE TO OPPOSITE PARTY - AMENDMENT TO INTRODUCE NEW CASE - WAIVER OF PLEA.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for rent and ejectment under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the defendant-appellant filed an amendment application after a delay of 9 years from the date of filing of the suit and 5 years from the filing of the appeal. The amendment sought to introduce a new defense that the disputed property was a Wakf property and therefore not subject to the provisions of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment application was not bonafide and was filed with the sole object of depriving the respondent of the fruits of the decree passed in his favor. The court found that the appellant had not provided any reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment and that allowing the amendment would cause irreparable injury to the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment application was filed with a malafide intent? 2. Whether the delay in filing the amendment application was justified? 3. Whether allowing the amendment would cause prejudice to the opposite party? 4. Whether the amendment sought to introduce a new case? 5. Whether the plea of absence of notice was waived by the defendant-appellant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amendment application was not necessary for the just and proper decision of the controversy between the parties and that it would completely alter the nature of the suit. 2. The court found that the appellant had not provided any reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking the amendment and that the delay was inordinate. 3. The court held that allowing the amendment would deprive the respondent of an important and valuable right and that such injury could not be compensated in terms of money. 4. The court held that the amendment sought to introduce a new defense that the disputed property was a Wakf property, which was not raised in the original written statement. 5. The court held that the plea of absence of notice was open to be raised by the defendant-appellant at the earliest stage and that by not raising the objection, the defendant must be deemed to have waived the plea.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the amendment applications filed by the appellant.
JUDGMENT
1. - By this order I am disposing of two amendment applications filed by the appellant on 12.5.92 seeking leave to amend the written statement filed by the appellant in the trial court in Civil Suit No. 94/83 as well as the memo of appeal filed before this Court.
2. For the purpose of deciding these amendment applications it is necessary to give few facts.
3. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for rent and ejectment on 19.7.83 in the court of District Judge, Ajmer, against the defendant appellant. In the plaint the plaintiff-respondent alleged that defendant-appellant is its tenant in respect of the premises specified in para-1 of the plaint on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. The date of tenancy commenced on the first day of the English month. The plaintiff-respondent alleged that the defendant-appellant has been very irregular in the payment of rent. He has paid rent only upto February 1980 and thus defaulted in the payment of rent for a period of more than six months and is, therefore, liable to be evicted under section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The plaintiff respondent claimed that he was entitled to rent for 40 months and 15 days. He however, claimed only a sum of Rs. 12,950/-. The defendant appellant in his written statement stated that the contents of para-1 of the plaint except the fact about the tenant is admitted. The tenancy is at the rate of Rs. 200/- and he has been paying rent at that rate. He has been regularly paying rent and rent upto January 1981 has already been paid. He has never committed any default in payment of rent. The plaintiff is not entitled to excess rent. In his additional pleas he stated that the monthly tenancy is only for Rs. 200/- and even that is excessive looking to the rate of rent of the premises in the vicinity. He prayed that the court may determine the standard rent. This written statement was filed by the defendant-appellant on 12.1.84. Statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 20th February 1987. After hearing the parties the trial court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 13.5.87. The defendant-appellant filed this appeal on 22.7.87. Ad-interim stay order was passed in favour of the appellant on 3.8.87. The stay was confirmed on 18.8.87 subject to certain conditions. On 11.3.91 the plaintiff-respondent filed an application for vacation of the stay order. After hearing the parties this court vacated the stay order on 18.11.91.
4. After the vacation of the stay order by the High Court, the plaintiff filed an application for execution on 27.11.91. The defendant filed objections in respect of the execution petition alleging therein that the decree passed by the trial court is null and void because, the premises in respect of which the decree has been passed and possession is to be taken, is the property of the Durgah Khwaja Sahib, Ajn}er and in view of the notification No. E 20 (14) Revenue (1)/76, dated 20.8.76, the provisions of' the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 are not applicable. It was also claimed that the provisions of Durgah Khwaja Sahib Ajmer Act and the Wakf Act are applicable and the plaintiff had himself admitted it to be a property of Durgah Khwaja Sahib. The objections filed by the defendant were rejected by the trial court on 6.2.92. Against that order an appeal has been filed by the appellant and the court has granted interim order in favour of the appellant. On 12.5.92, the appellant has filed two amendment applications, one for seeking leave of the court to amend the written statement filed in the main suit and the other for leave to amend the memo of appeal.
5. The amendment sought in the written statement is by way of insertion of para 10. It has been stated in that paragraph that the disputed property is a Wakf property and is controlled by Durgah Committee. The plaintiff himself is a tenant of Durgah Committee and the defendant is a sub-tenant in the knowledge of the original owner
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
