Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Ramuram, S/o. Manglaram and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Lunaram, S/o. Multanram and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2497 Of 2024
Decided On : 01-03-2024
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought amendment to their temporary injunction application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which was rejected by the Trial Court. They filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the amendment sought did not change the fundamental nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the other party. It allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order, allowing the amendment in the temporary injunction application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment to the temporary injunction application should have been allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 should be allowed if it does not fundamentally change the nature of the case or cause prejudice to the other party. It also considered the stage of the trial and the absence of prejudice to the parties.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the petitioners’ application seeking amendment in the application for temporary injunction was quashed and set aside. The application for seeking amendment in the Temporary Injunction application was allowed.
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
^^vr% izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk vkns'k Qjek;sa rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; fon~oku flfu;j flfoy tt] vksfl;k¡ tks/kiqj ftyk esa yfEcr vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds izkFkZuk i= la[;k 28@2023 ¼16@2023½ esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 15-02-2024 ¼,usDpj&7½ dks vikLr o fujLr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k Qjekos rFkk izkFkhZx.k ds izkFkZuk i= ds vUrxZr vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lifBr /kkjk 151 lhihlh ¼,usDpj&5 dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk vkns’k QjekosA vU; dksbZ mfpr vkns'k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa ikfjr djuk vko';d le>rk gks] lkfnj QjekosaA^^
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1’s residential land is situated in Khasra No.1597/28, Village Osiya and petitioner No. 2’s residential land is situated in Khasra No.1588/63, while respondent No. 4’s occupied land is situated in Khasra No.1588/66, wherein a colony has been carved out. The land of petitioner No.2, measuring 2 bigha, is entered in the records by the name of Mr. Khushlaram as per the measurement done on 21.11.2019. Khushlaram had sold 10 biswa land to his wife, Kamla and 1 bigha 10 biswa land to the petitioner No. 2 by way of a registered sale deed, wherein the colony has been carved out into 41 plots thus, the petitioners and respondent No. 4 are having peaceful possession on the said colony.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, raised a boundary wall of stones as well as of fencing on the eastern side of the said land on 17.02.2023. Appalled by the said act of the respondent No.1 to 3, the petitioners filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners being aggrieved by by such act of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit (Annexure-1) for permanent and mandatory injunction before the learned Trial Court. Along with which, an application seeking temporary injunction (Annexure-2) was also filed with a request to restrain the respondent nos. 1 to 3 from interfering and maintain the status quo of the said land till the pendency of the suit.
4. Post the service of notice, a reply to the temporary injunction application was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 while denying all the facts on 18.12.2023 (Annexure-3). During the pendency of the application, the petitioners had preferred an application (Annexure-4) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) while submitting that on receiving information, prior to filing the suit along with the temporary injunction by the petitioners, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have erected an iron gate and stone slab on the land of the petitioners and have constructed a shield over them. Thus, the said submission was requested to be added in paragraph No. 6 and 11 (2) of the plaint preferred by the petitioners. A similar application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 was also presented along with the application for temporary injunction preferred by the petitioners (Annexure-5).
5. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 did not file reply to the application for amendment to the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction and thus, they were argued finally before the learned Trial Court.
6. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-6) allowing the application for amendment to the suit while dismissing the application for amendment to the application for temporary injunction on the same day, 15.02.2024 (Annexure-7).
7. Thus, the petitioner, being aggrieved of the order dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure-7), passed by the learned Trial Court insofar it rejects amendment sought in the application for temporary injunction, has preferred this writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the learned Trial Court had allowed the application for amendment to the original suit under Order VI Rule 17, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court n
The main legal point established is that an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed if it does not fundamentally change the nature of the case or cause prejudice to the other pa....
Amendments to pleadings are permissible when necessary to resolve the real dispute between parties, particularly when issues have not been framed, to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
Amendments to pleadings post-trial commencement are not permissible unless due diligence is shown, ensuring they do not alter the fundamental character of the case.
All necessary amendments for determining the real questions in controversy should be allowed, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. Delay alone cannot be a ground to di....
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed to determine the real controversy between parties, emphasizing a liberal approach to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. can be allowed at any stage of proceedings to determine the real controversy.
Amendment of plaint – If amendment is necessary for deciding real controversy between parties and for arriving at a just conclusion, such amendment could be allowed even at a late stage.
The court upheld a liberal approach to amendments in pleadings, allowing inconsistencies unless they cause prejudice, emphasizing the need for effective adjudication of the real issues.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
