HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5112/2020

1.

Rameshwar S/o Late Shri Dhool Ji @ Dhuli Lal, R/o Panch

Batti, Kalipaltan, Tonk (Raj.) Since Deceased Through

LRs:

1/1.

Suraj Mal Sahu S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu,

1/2.

Ramgopal Sahu S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu,

1/3.

Chand Mal Sahu S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu,

1/4.

Ganesh Sahu S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu,

1/5.

Smt. Phoola Devi W/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu,

All R/o Panch Batti, Kalipaltan, Tonk (Raj.)

----Petitioners-Plaintiffs

Versus

1.

Masoom Ali Khan S/o Shri Ahmed Ali Khan, R/o Panch

Batti, Kalipaltan, Tonk (Raj.)

2.

Hamid Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Ali Khan, R/o Tonk

Presently Residing At Nimhera, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

...Defendants

3.

Indra Sahu D/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu,

4.

Vrinda D/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu,

5.

Lachami Sahu @ Geeta D/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu,

6.

Mamta Sahu D/o Late Shri Rameshwar Sahu,

R/o Panch Batti, Kalipaltan, Tonk (Raj.)

----Proforma Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Ms. Arti Goyal, Advocate with Mr.

Mamoon Khalid, Advocate

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Nimesh Nigotia, Advocate

Ms. Mohd. Adil, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Order

08/02/2021

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated

12.2.2020 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 12/2006,

(2 of 3)

[CW-5112/2020]

whereby the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs (for

short, the 'plaintiffs') under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC has been

dismissed.

Facts of the case are that father of the plaintiffs filed a

suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partial cancellation

of the sale deed against the respondents-defendants (for short,

'the defendants'). The defendants put in appearance and filed the

written statement. Subsequently, the Trial Court framed 5 issues.

During the pendancy of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application

under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for amending the issues, as proposed

in the application. The same has been disallowed by the Trial

Court vide its order dated 12.2.2020. Hence, this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that as per

Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, at anytime before passing a decree, the

Court may amend the issues or frame additional issues. Thus,

application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC could have been filed at

any stage before passing the decree, but the learned Trial Court

while dismissing the application has given a perverse finding that

the matter is at final stage and suit is pending since 2006. In this

view of the matter, the application was liable to be allowed. He

further submits that in case the application under Order 14 Rule 5

CPC is allowed by this Court, the plaintiffs would not lead any

further evidence in regard thereto.

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that if no

further evidence is led by the plaintiffs on the proposed issues,

they have no objection if the impugned order dated 12.2.2020

passed by the Trial Court is quashed and set-aside.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case, and more particularly in view of the consent of learned

(3 of 3)

[CW-5112/2020]

counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 12.2.2020

passed by the Trial Court is quashed and set-aside and the

application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC is allowed. However,

none of the parties shall be allowed to adduce further evidence

with regard to the amended issues.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH GUPTA), J.

DK/15