MANOHAR SINGH S/O JORAVAR SINGH vs JHABAR SINGH S/O GULAB SINGH

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 1128

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
MANOHAR SINGH S/O JORAVAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
JHABAR SINGH S/O GULAB SINGH – Respondent
CW / 16571 / 2024

Important Points

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.

Subject

Civil Law - Civil Procedure

Act Referred

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 1 Rule 10,Order 6 Rule 17,S.151

Headnote

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 - Writ petition challenging the order of the trial court rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment - The trial court erred in dismissing the application for amendment following the impleading of subsequent purchasers as defendants. (Paras 1-7)

(B) The plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaint due to subsequent sale, and the trial court's refusal to accept the amended plaint was incorrect. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendants, and sought to amend the plaint after subsequent purchasers were impleaded as parties.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's order rejecting the plaintiff's application for amendment is set aside, and the amended plaint is to be taken on record.

Issues: The main issues involved the correctness of the trial court's rejection of the amendment application and the implications of subsequent sales.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaint following the addition of new parties and that the trial court's errors necessitated the amendment's acceptance.

Result: Petition allowed.

Advocates:
Mr. Kapil Bardhar, Adv. with Mr. Ayush Sharma, Adv.

Order :

1. This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') against the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.45/2024, whereby application dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short 'the defendants') in which plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was allowed by the trial court and the subsequent purchasers were impleaded as party defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff filed amended plaint including consequential amendment as per order 1 Rule 10 CPC, but the defendant No.3 raised objection before the trial court by filing the application under Section 151 CPC. The trial court vide order dated 01.06.2024 allowed the application filed by the defendant No.3 and placed the amended plaint in part D of the record.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the pleadings but trial court vide order dated 29.08.2024 dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that when trial court had allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the plaintiff had filed the amended plaint on account of subsequent amendment. He also submits that without filing amended plaint, no purpose would be served in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. So, consequential amendment had to be taken on record by the trial court. Thus, the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the trial court rejecting the aside.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order.

6. It is an admitted position that on account of subsequent sale, trial court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and impleaded the subsequent purchasers as party defendant. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had committed error in keeping amended plaint filed by the plaintiff in part D of the record on the basis of application filed by the defendant No.3 under Section 151 CPC. The trial court had also committed error in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC because on account of subsequent sale, the plaintiff is entitled to carry out the amendment in the plaint. So, petition filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed.

7. The Civil Writ Petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside and trial court is directed to take the amended plaint filed by the plaintiff on record.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.