SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 855

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



Advocates:
Mr. Kamal Prasad Goytan

Delay in seeking amendment of pleadings post-defendant's death was unjustified, highlighting the need for diligence in civil proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Writ petition challenging dismissal of amendment application - The petitioner sought to amend the written statement after the death of the original defendant and after a significant delay - The learned Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that the original defendant was aware of the change in circumstances and did not seek amendment before his death. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - The court emphasized that amendments should be sought without undue delay and that the applicant must show diligence in raising issues before the trial commences. (Paras 3-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, son of the deceased original defendant, challenged the dismissal of his application to amend the written statement in a suit for eviction and mesne profits filed by the respondent. The original defendant passed away on 16.01.2020, and the amendment application was filed on 08.07.2022, over two years later.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the amendment application, finding no justification for the delay and that the original defendant was aware of the circumstances.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could amend the written statement after the death of the original defendant and the implications of the delay.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in seeking an amendment was unjustified, and the original defendant's awareness of the circumstances negated the petitioner's claim.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top