P.C. JAIN, J.—This second appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1982, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer, in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1976 (12 of 1977), affirming the judgment and decree dated 17th November, 1976, passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff, Ajmer City, in Civil Suit No. 60 of 1969 (6 of 1973).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for injunction restraining the defendant from making any construction over the land or from interfering in any manner in his possession over the disputed land. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of the disputed plot and he has possession over it. The defendant contested the suit, denying that the disputed plot belongs to the plaintiff. He contended that the disputed land is a part of his property and the western boundary of his property extends to the disputed land. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 12th November, 1973. The Trial Court gave a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the disputed land.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ajmer. Before the appellate Court, an application for amendment was submitted by the plaintiff under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., to amend the prayer clause and to mention about the prayer for possession in that clause. The learned appellate Court allowed the amendment in the prayer clause and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In the Trial Court, amended plaint was filed after four months. The defendant submitted an amended written statement. The defendant-appellant raised an objection that the amended plaint was not filed within the prescribed time and, thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed. An issue to this effect along with other issues was framed, which is as follows:-

"Whether the amendment granted by the appellate Court is to be rejected under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure?"

No further evidence was adduced after the remand of the case. The Trial Court decided all the issues afresh and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 17th November 1976. An appeal was preferred against it. The appellate Court over-ruled all the objections and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 21st May, 1982. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge. Ajmer, this second appeal has been preferred. While admitting the case, the following substantial question of law was framed:-

"Whether the original decree of the Trial Court dated November 12, 1973, dismissing the plaintiffs suit is still intact by reason of the failure of the lower appellate Court to pass any order on July 9, 1975, when it remanded the case to the Trial Court, to set aside the said decree?"

4. Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that as the remand order was not in conformity with Order 41 Rule 21. C.P.C., the original decree of the Trial Court dated 12th November, 1973, dismissing the plaintiffs suit is still intact. Another submission made by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, is that in view of the fact that the amended plaint was not filed within time prescribed under Order 6 Rule 18, C.P.C., the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to admit the amended plaint after extending any period prescribed under Order 6 Rule 18, C.P.C. He has further submitted that the amendment was allowed by the appellate Court and as such, it was the appellate Court alone which could have extended the period for filing the amended plaint and the Trial Court had no jurisdiction either to extend the period fixed by the appellate Court and to admit the amended plaint and, thus, the entire proceedings after filing of the amended plaint are without jurisdiction. Consequently, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document