Dismissed

Raj Kumar and Others v. Shakuntla Devi (Deceased through LRs Servesh Singh) and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Jun 2024CMPMO/108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging the Trial Court's rejection of an application to amend the written statement. The Court held the impugned order was justified as the amendment was silent on necessity and the delay was unexplained.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the dismissal of the amendment application has been dismissed.

Raj Kumar and Others Vs Shakuntla… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMPMO No.108 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.06.2024

¶3

Raj Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Shakuntal Devi & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶4

Coram:

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the petitioners : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents : None.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court, dismissing the petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amendment of the written statement, this petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also considered the material on record.

¶10

¶11

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶12

-2-

¶13

In the application moved under Order VI Rule 17,

¶14

CPC, the petitioners (defendants) have sought addition of following lines in their written statement:-

¶15

“the plaintiff filed an application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC against defendant no.1 and 2 and further during the pendency of suit the defendant no.1 and 2 moved an application under order 9 rule 13 CPC against the defendant no. 3 and 4 the said application of defendant no.1 and 2 for setting-aside the judgement and decree passed in Civil Suit no. 746/2014 was allowed and the defendant no.3 and 4 had preferred an appeal which is pending adjudication before the Ld. ADJ Una camp at Amb. The operation of the order dated 13-05-2022 of this Hon'ble Court had been stayed by LD. Add. District Judge Una vide its order dated.”

¶16

From above, it appears that the petitioners (defendants) are suggesting about there being a previous Civil Suit instituted by defendants No.3 and 4; It having been decreed ex parte in favour of defendants No.3 and 4; Defendants No.1 and 2 (present petitioners) as well as plaintiff moved separate applications under Order IX Rule 13

¶17

-3-

¶18

CPC, for setting aside that ex parte judgment and decree; The application moved by defendants No.1 and 2 (present petitioners) under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed. However, the order had been stayed by the learned Appellate Court on 13.05.2022.

¶19

In my considered view, the learned Trial Court had justly dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the written statement. The petitioners-applicants (defendants) have not demonstrated as to how the amendment sought by them was necessary and relevant for the decision of the case. The application is completely silent in that regard. Any number of events, which may take place during the pendency of the Civil Suit cannot be considered necessary to be incorporated in the pleadings. Learned Trial Court was also justified to observe that the matter in issue in the main case was regarding adjudication of two different Wills, one dated 16.09.2021 and other dated 09.10.2003. The execution and non-execution of these two Wills was to be looked into. Be that as it may. The application moved by the petitioners (defendants) for amendment of the written statement does

¶20

-4-

¶21

not even satisfy the parameters laid down in the provision. The suit is stated to be pending adjudication for more than 10 years. Neither any reason for delay in moving the amendment application nor any cause has been demonstrated that the proposed amendment is necessary or essential for adjudication of the matter/controversy between the parties. Hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Accordingly the present petition fails and is dismissed.

¶22

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed

¶23

of.

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 12^th June, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)

Raj Kumar and Others v. Shakuntla Devi (Deceased through LRs Servesh Singh) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and Others v. Shakuntla Devi (Deceased through LRs Servesh Singh) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Javed Vs State of Hp and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Babu Ram and Others Vs NHAI and Another

Arud Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

The Hp State Co-Op Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and Another Vs Anjali and Others