Allowed

Shivdayal Singh andORS v. Nagar Nigal andANR

Rajasthan HC19 May 2015CW/5305/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's rejection of an amendment application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC. The Court permitted the amendment to the plaint to include a prayer for declaring a notice illegal, allowing it in the interest of justice subject to an interim cost.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Trial Court rejecting the amendment application is set aside and the amendment application is allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000 costs.

Shivdayal Singh andORS Vs Nagar Nigal andANR — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5305/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5305/2015 Shivdayal Singh & Ors.-Petitioners Versus Nagar Nigam & Anr.-Respondents.

¶5

Date of Order :: 19/05/2015

¶6

Hon 'ble Ms. J ust ic e Bela M. Trivedi

¶7

Mr. Ashok Mishra, for the petitioners. Dr. P.C. Jain, for the respondent/s.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

BY THE COURT :

¶10

The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present petition, challenging the order dated 17/3/2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.421 of 2011, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC, seeking amendment in the plaint.

¶11

It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ashok Mishra for the petitioners that the petitioners have filed the suit, seeking permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants, however due to inadvertence, the petitioners had not challenged the notice dated 13/10/2011 issued by the respondents to the petitioners, and therefore the petitioners have sought the amendment in the plaint. According to him, the proposed amendment would not prejudice the respondents in any manner, and the same be allowed in the interest of justice. However, the learned counsel Dr.P.C. Jain for the respondents has submitted that the said application seeking amendment was filed by the petitioners with malice intention as the exparte interim injunction is

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5305/2015

¶13

¶14

operating against the respondents-defendants. He further submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court being just and proper, the same does not warrant any interference.

¶15

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that the suit is pending at the stage of framing of the issues, and the parties still have to lead the evidence. It is true that the petitioners-plaintiffs should have sought the declaration in respect of the impugned notice when they sought injunction against the respondents. However, the proposed amendment seeking declaration as such would not cause any prejudice to the respondents/defendants, as they would have sufficient opportunity to lead the evidence in that regard. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that proposed amendment sought by the petitioners deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice, subject to the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents.

¶16

In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside, and the application of the petitioners filed before the Trial Court under Order VI, Rule 17 is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondents within fifteen days from today. It is further clarified that the petitioner-plaintiff shall also be liable to pay the requisite court fees on such amended plaint, and respondentsdefendants shall be at liberty to file further written statement to such amended plaint.

¶17

The petition stands allowed accordingly. By this order, the stay application also stands disposed of.

¶18

(Bela M. Trivedi) J .

¶19

Sanjay SolankiPA “ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Sanjay Solanki PA

Shivdayal Singh andORS v. Nagar Nigal andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivdayal Singh andORS v. Nagar Nigal andANR

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

M/S Ganeshdas Gyanchand andANR Vs Heera Lal Peepada

K Ramnarayan Vs Shri Pukhraj

Ramesh Chand Vs Satyanarayan Maheshwari

Mrk Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Medical and Healthors

M/S Mateshwari Minerals andANR Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Prakash Chand Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.