[2025:RJ-JD:30655]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12991/2025 Amit Kumar Choudhary S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal Choudhary, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Sbbj Main Branch Gali, Near Purohit Ki Chakki Suratgarh, District, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Duli Chand S/o Shri Ruparam, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Amarpura, Jatan, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar Office Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Monal Chugh.

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

14/07/2025

1. Petitioner (defendant) herein, inter-alia, seeks quashing of an order dated 30.06.2025 (Annex.-8) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, Sriganganagar in Civil Case No.5/2017, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Respondent No.1) has filed a suit seeking specific performance of a sale deed dated 19.02.2016. It is alleged that Respondent No.1 had entered into an agreement with the petitioner (defendant) on the said date for the sale of an industrial plot measuring 1000 sq. ft. situated in RIICO Industrial Area, Sri Ganganagar, for a total consideration of ₹12 lakhs. Out of this amount, ₹9 lakhs were paid as advance on the date of the agreement, with the balance to be paid at the time of registration, scheduled for 15.02.2017. Despite repeated requests by Respondent No.1, the petitioner deliberately delayed the execution and failed to register the sale deed.

3. For ease of reference, English translation (as provided) of the relevant part of the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 is as below:-

“Application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC On behalf of the defendant, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was submitted on 13.05.2025. Arguments on the said application were duly heard.

During the course of arguments, the counsel for the applicant/defendant essentially reiterated the facts stated in the application and submitted that in the written statement, the defendant has specifically taken the defense that no agreement for sale of the disputed plot was ever executed between the defendant and the plaintiff, nor was any consideration amount received under the alleged sale agreement dated 19.02.2016.

It was further contended that at the time of the execution of the said agreement dated 19.02.2016, the subject plot bearing No. G-102 was mortgaged with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (now State Bank of India), Suratgarh Branch, and therefore, it was not legally possible to enter into a valid agreement for its sale. Hence, the said agreement is void and has no legal effect.

Moreover, the mortgaged property is presently under auction proceedings for recovery of the loan taken against it. Accordingly, the applicant prayed for the acceptance of the application and for permission to carry out the amendment proposed under Paragraph No. 20 of the application, specifically as Amendments No. 05 and 06.

In response, the counsel for the non-applicant/plaintiff argued that evidence from both parties in the matter has already been completed, and the case is now fixed at the stage of final arguments. The relief now sought to be incorporated through the amendment had not been claimed earlier by the applicant/defendant, thereby amounting to a waiver of such right. If the amendment is allowed at this stage, it would necessitate the framing of new issues and lead to the requirement of adducing fresh evidence by both parties, resulting in a de novo trial. It was also submitted that the applicant bank had earlier, on 14.09.2018, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking to be impleaded as a party to the suit. In response to the application, the def