Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J
SMT. RAJPATI @ RAJRANI WIFE OF LATE SHRI VEER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
SATISH KUMAR YADAV SON OF LATE SHRI HOSHIYAR SINGH – Respondent
CW / 14965 / 2024
Order
1. This Civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metro-II in civil suit No. 7/2021, whereby the trial Court partly disallowed the application filed by the defendants.
2. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 28,69,674/- in which trial Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed the issues vide order dated 01.02.2023. After that, defendants filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of the additional issues but the trial Court partly disallowed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel further submits that Trial Court had not framed the issues as per the pleadings of the parties. So, the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the trial Court be directed to frame the issues as per the pleadings of the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submits that trial Court has rightly partly disallowed the application filed by the defendants. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 proposed by the defendants were already incorporated in the issue No. 1. So, the present petition be dismissed.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order.
5. Trial Court while partly allowing the application filed by the defendants clearly mentioned that proposed issue Nos. 1 to 3 were incorporated in the issue No. 1. So, there was no need to frame the additional issues. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in partly disallowing the application filed by the defendants. So, the petition filed by the defendants being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
6. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
The trial Court has discretion in framing issues and did not err in dismissing the defendants' application as the proposed issues were already incorporated.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to partly dismiss the application for additional issues, finding it necessary for the adjudication of the partition suit.
A plaintiff is entitled to amend their plaint when subsequent parties are added, and a trial court's refusal to accept such amendments is erroneous.
The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition against a trial court's order, finding no error in refusing to frame additional issues post-evidence completion.
Amendments to correct typographical errors in pleadings should be allowed as they do not affect the substance of the case.
The dismissal of the original suit nullifies any interim orders, and the appellate court's decision to set aside the trial court's civil imprisonment directive was correct.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may dismiss an application for framing of an additional issue if it deems that the party was lethargic in pursuing their remedy and ....
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
