Procedural rules should facilitate justice; amendments to pleadings must allow for necessary developments in a case.

Order (Oral)

28/05/2025

1. Petitioner (plaintiff) herein, inter-alia, seeks quashing of an order dated 25.02.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, vide which the learned Trial Court has rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for amendment by inserting an additional paragraph 8A in the plaint. Civil suit was filed in year 2008 seeking decree for specific performance pursuant to an agreement dated 01.05.2002. 2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no necessity to issue notice to the respondents, as the nature of the order proposed would not result in any prejudice to them.

3. The impugned order dated 25.02.2025 (as provided) is, inter alia, premised on the reasoning that the plaintiff has already admitted in the plaint that he was not in possession of the disputed land. He later claimed that possession was handed over to him by Megh Singh Rathore on 31.12.2010 in the presence of witnesses. The defendants have already denied this in their written statement. Notably, the plaintiff had earlier allowed the suit to be dismissed for non-prosecution, and it was subsequently restored in August 2024. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was belatedly filed on 18.10.2024. The amendment sought seeks to establish possession, which would materially change the nature of the original suit. Defendant/Vikram Singh had already filed a petition before the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, on 11.09.2007 against Karnpal Singh for recovery of possession, which remains pending. In that proceeding, Karnpal Singh claimed that a portion of the disputed property was rented in the name of 'Eklavya Academy.' The learned trial court observed that the plaintiff was well aware of these facts. The plaintiff has failed to justify the delay or demonstrate due diligence; and that the amendment sought would significantly affect the nature of the original suit. Consequently, the plaintiff’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected.

4. It transpires that the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint by inserting Paragraph 8A. For ease of reference, English translation (as provided) of the same is as below:-

“8A. That at the time of purchasing the disputed land on 01.05.2002, an educational institution named ‘Eklavya Academy’ was being operated on the premises. At the time of executing the agreement, under Clause 7 of the lease agreement, Defendant No.1 had granted the Plaintiff full rights to receive monthly rent from the tenants located on the disputed land, take action against such tenants, and recover possession from them. Since then, the Plaintiff has been continuously taking care of the disputed land. Later, when Eklavya Academy ceased to operate as an educational institution, Megh Singh Rathore, son of Shri Hari Singh Rathore, the treasurer of the institution, handed over actual possession of the portion of the premises where the institution was functioning, on 31.12.2010, in the presence of two witnesses. He also executed a Deed of Surrender with his signature, which bears the signatures of Megh Singh, the Plaintiff, and the witnesses. Since 2010, the Plaintiff has been in continuous, uninterrupted, and undisputed possession of the subject immovable property as an owner. Water and electricity connections are also in the Plaintiff’s name. However, Defendant No.8 is in possession of a remaining portion of the property. The portion of the disputed land occupied by Defendant No.8 is also part of the land purchased by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain actual possession of that portion from Defendant No.8. None of the other Defendants have ever been in possession of the disputed land, nor do they currently possess it. The alleged agreem