HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12789/2019

Natwarlal Gupta S/o. Not Known, Scientific Officer, Resident Of

Type-III, 10-B, Anu Kiran Colony, Post Office, Bhabha Nagar-

Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Raj.) Presently Residing At

Type-IV, 31-E, Anukiran Colony, Post Office, Bhabha Nagar,

Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

----Non Applicant-Defendant-Petitioner

Versus

1.

Dinesh Kumar Agarwal S/o. Shri Shalta Prasad Agarwal,

Aged 56 Years, Resident of 2-G-1, Dadabari, Kota (Raj.)

----Applicant-Plaintiff-Respondent

2.

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota through Secretary, Urban

Improvement Trust, Kota (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr.Ashwani Kumar Chobisa, Adv.

Mr.R.S. Khinchi, Adv. for Mr.Satya

Narayan Kumawat, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

29/08/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-

defendant challenging order dated 08.02.2019, whereby

application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17

CPC has been allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted

that initially suit for cancellation was filed by the respondent-

plaintiff and since suit was not maintainable and as such,

application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was allowed by the

(2 of 6)

[CW-12789/2019]

Trial Court vide order dated 24.05.2007 and suit of the plaintiff

was returned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted

that feeling aggrieved against such order dated 24.05.2007, S.B.

Civil Misc. Appeal No.2893/2007 (Dinesh Kumar Agarwal

Vs. Natwar Lal Gupta & Anr.) was filed before this Court. This

Court on 16.08.2016 had disposed of the said Civil Misc. Appeal by

permitting the respondent-plaintiff to file application before the

Court below for making the amendment incorporating the

subsequent events as during pendency of the suit proceedings,

land which was initially agriculture had became abadi land on

issuance of patta.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted

that though this court had directed the respondent-plaintiff to

make amendment in his pleadings, however, the entire pleading

could not have been changed by the respondent by incorporating

the facts which were already in the knowledge of respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted

that this Court while permitting the respondent to make

amendment in the pleadings only permitted the petitioner to

incorporate the relevant facts which had taken place after 31^st

March, 2013 and as such, amendment made in the main plaint

pertain to previous incidents and facts and as such, the Court

below ought not to have allowed the application filed by the

respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted

that all those facts, which were already in the knowledge of the

respondent-plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit, could not have

been allowed to be incorporated in amended pleading.

(3 of 6)

[CW-12789/2019]

Learned counsel submitted that initially suit was for

injunction and later on by making amendment, the suit has been

converted i.e. for possession, declaration and cancellation of patta

issued in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

very purpose of amendment in the pleadings is not to change the

nature of dispute or prayer in the main suit itself and if such

prayer is accepted, the entire nature of suit would change.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an

application filed by the respondent-plaintiff incorporated not only

the irrelevant facts but also did not have any bearing at all to

decide the real controversy and as such, unnecessary pleadings

have been incorporated in the garb of amendment in the pleading.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Court below ought to h