Point of Law: Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as amendment of pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

“A) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the order impugned dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure-7) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar as well as the order dated 5.08.2019 (Annexure-10) passed by learned Board of Revenue may kindly be quashed and set aside. B) By an appropriate writ order or direction the revision petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed as prayed for and the applications filed by the respondent No.2 & 3 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC may kindly be dismissed.”

2. The present writ petition assails the impugned order dated 10.10.2014 (Annex.7) passed by the SDO (Revenue) Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Case No.88/2012 (26/2001) Harmel Kaur & Ors. v. Jagraj Singh & Ors., whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by respondents No.2 & 3 for amending the suit and the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for impleading Babu Singh, the present petitioner as party respondent in the main suit were allowed.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision petition, bearing case No.6086/2017, titled Kuldeep Kaur & Anr. v. Harmel Kaur & Ors. was preferred under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2019 (Annex.10).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned orders on the following grounds:-

4.1 That the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed without assigning any reasons for the same. And that the matter ought to be remanded back to the concerned S.D.O. for a fresh decision. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Manipur High Court in the case of the State of Manipur v. Arambam Manju Singh (Criminal Petition No.1/2021) decided on 26.02.2021, and drawing attention of this Court to paragraph 11, submitted that a mere line in the impugned order stating that the record has been perused and the facts and circumstances of the case have been considered does not amount to a reasoned judicial order.

Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“In its recent judgment in Mahipal case, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that merely recording ”having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order as the duty of judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the hear of this commitment. It was also stressed that the question of grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interest of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice.”

4.2 That the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, sale deed pertaining the year 1996 was sought to be challenged/declared null and void. The suit was filed on 24.04.2001, whereas the application was filed on 24.12.2012 (Annex.3). And that, therefore, there is a gross and unexplained delay of 11 years in filing such application. And that the reply to the suit was already filed on 24.12.2002, and that the sale deed in question was well within the knowledge at the time of filing reply.

4.3 That the learned Courts below have erred in allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as it is tantamount to changing the nature of the suit itself, from partition of land to that of suit of title and cancellation of sale deed. Furthermore that the respondents have also sought to get the adoption deed declared as null and void. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Revajeetu Builders v. Narayanswamy (Civil Appeal No. 6921/2009) decided on 09.10.2009 and Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. Kiran Construction Co. (Civil Appeal No. 2573/2008) decided on 09.04.2008.

For the sake of brevity