HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati, J
PAPPU RAM DHOBI – Appellant
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE RAM KUMAR – Respondent
CW / 17609 / 2024
Order :
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer :-
“It is, therefore humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.) in Civil Original Suit No.03/2008 (289/2010) (CO 224/2014) titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. Ratanlal may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit before learned Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 1, Sujangarh, District Churu seeking a decree of eviction of rented shop and for payment of mesne profit and other expenses against the defendant-Shri Ratan Lal (father of the present petitioner). After service of notices, the defendant submitted his written statement to the suit denying the averments of the suit. During the pendency of suit, father of the petitioner expired on 16.01.2020 and on 04.03.2022 respondent No. 1 presented an application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. for impleading petitioner as defendant No. 1/2 and proforma respondents No. 2 to 6 as defendants No. 1/1, 1/3 to 1/6 respectively which was allowed by learned Trial Court. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court has framed as many as six issues including the issue of relief also. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to amend the written statement. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of the parties passed the order dated 06.09.2024 whereby the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been dismissed. The petitioner now being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge, Sujangarh has preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of the India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the original defendant, father of the petitioner passed away on 16.01.2020 and the petitioner being his only son is the tenant of the shop in question and thus, he preferred the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. He also submits that solely on the ground of delay, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application while ignoring the fact that the present petitioner is now the tenant of the shop in question. He further submits that the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 came into effect from 11.07.2014 in Nagar Parishad area i.e. Sujangarh and on account of subsequent change in the jurisdiction of hearing the matter, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been preferred by the petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court after hearing the petitioner has observed that the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 came into effect in Nagar Parishad area Sujangarh, i.e. where the suit property in question is situated, with effect from 11.07.2014, whereas, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been preferred by the petitioner on 08.07.2022. The original defendant died on 16.01.2020 and, thus, any change in the facts and circumstances of the jurisdiction was well within the knowledge of the original defendant himself who did not choose to seek amendment in the written statement. Further, the original defendant died on 16.01.2020 and the application has been filed after more than two years and the petitioner has not shown that in spite of due diligence, the defendant-petitioner could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial and thus, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application.
6. Accordingly and in view of the above discussion, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, als
Delay in seeking amendment of pleadings post-defendant's death was unjustified, highlighting the need for diligence in civil proceedings.
The new Rent Control Act does not apply retrospectively to pending suits, and jurisdiction is determined by the law in effect at the time of filing.
Ownership issues cannot be determined in eviction suits, and certified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence.
Ownership issues cannot be adjudicated in eviction suits; certified copies of public documents are admissible as evidence.
Legal representatives of a deceased landlord can amend eviction applications to include their necessity, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, provided no injustice is caused to the other party.
Point of Law : Tenant fails to furnish undertaking to above effect, respondent-landlady would be entitled to get judgment/decree of eviction executed forthwith in accordance with law.
The amendment sought under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC should be allowed only if the facts were not within the petitioner's knowledge prior to filing the reply.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.