The Single Judge of the City Civil Court refused to permit a belated amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to raise objections under the DLR Act. Instead, the court framed an additional legal issue regarding the bar under the Act for final adjudication without requiring evidence.
No amendment in pleadings permitted; additional legal issue framed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified CM (M) 97/2019 & 98/2019 Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
Order 15 A CPG. The Tenant, during the pendency of the appeal, had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to incorporate objections as to maintainability of the suits in view of the bar under the DLR Act. The amendments had been refused by the Trial Court on the ground that they have been moved at a belated stage as the issues had already been framed in the suits on September, 2015 and trial has commenced. 3. Ld. counsel for the Tenant submits that the issue of nonmaintainability of the suits in view of the provisions of the DLR Act is a legal issue and ought to have been permitted by the Trial Court. On the other hand. Id. counsel for the Landlord submits that the premises are shops and the area is also urbanised, so the question as to whether the DLR Act applies or not does not even arise.
"2. That the suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable as the are in question where the suit property falls is a part and parcel of village Gharoli and it has not been urbanized till date and being a rural village, and the suit land exists on agricultural land of village Gharoli and therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as Kiran Singh i.e. father of the Plaintiff is a Bhumidhar and the defendant is a Asami and no suit can be filed for ejectment except under the provisions of Section 185 of the D.L.R. Act and it also debars the jurisdiction of any other court to entertain the present case except by the court of Revenue Assistant / SDM. "
CM (M) 97/2019 & 98/2019
^
issues, after the evidence had already been commenced, the Land.lord had filed the affidavit in evidence of three witnesses, and in respect of one witness, cross-examination had already begun. Thus, the amendment of the written statements cannot be permitted at this stage.
Whether the suit is barred by provisions of the DLR Act? OPD 7. The above issue being a legal issue, no evidence would be required to be led in respect of the above issue. After conclusion of evidence, the Trial Court would decide all the issues framed earlier, including the issue framed hereinabove at the stage of final adjudication of the suits. No amendment in the pleadings is being permitted.
/ NOVEMBER 06, 2019/JA:
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
CM (M) 97/2019 & 98/2019
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to raise non-maintainability of suits under the DLR Act can be permitted after issues have been framed and evidence commenced.
Whether a legal bar under the Dhaba (if any) Land Reorganization Act should be decided on merits or left as a framed legal issue for final adjudication.
Tenant
Landlord
Prathiba M. Singh
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
