Dismissed

Gopal S/O Late Shri Kalyan by Caste Mali v. Smt. Mangi Devi W/O Ramdev by Caste Mali

Rajasthan HC27 Nov 2018CW/16174/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the lower court's decision to deny an amendment to a civil suit challenging possession. The Court found no material illegality in the refusal, noting that possession was already negated in a prior suit.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Gopal S/O Late Shri Kalyan by Caste Mali Vs Smt. Mangi… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 16174/2018

¶3

Gopal S/o Late Shri Kalyan By Caste Mali, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Modi Ki Chowki, Civil Lines, Tonk, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

¶4

Babu S/o Late Shri Kalyan By Caste Mali, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Modi Ki Chowki, Civil Lines, Tonk, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Mangi Devi W/o Ramdev By Caste Mali, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Opp. Shivalaya Temple, Modi Ki Chowki, Tonk (Raj.)

¶8

Nagar Parishad, Tonk Through Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Tonk, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

¶9

Sub-Registrar, Tonk, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶13

Order

¶14

27/11/2018

¶15

Aggrieved of the order dated 11^th April, 2018, the petitioners have instituted the present writ application for an application instituted under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been declined.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Gurbakhsh Singh v. Buta Singh : (2018) 6 SCC 567 , urged that the nature of the amendment as proposed would neither change the character and nature of the suit nor does it introduce any fresh ground, and

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-16174/2018]

¶19

therefore, the application seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ought to have been granted by the Court below.

¶20

It is further pointed out that the suit proceedings were instituted on 1^st October, 2013, for cancellation of sale deed dated 24^th June, 2013, with an application for temporary injunction, which has already been declined. Written statement was filed on 10^th December, 2013, by the defendant number 1 and on 15^th September, 2014, by the defendant number 2. Issues were framed on 28^th October, 2015, while the petitioners were dispossessed on 21^st January, 2016. Thus, the subsequent events were required to be taken note of and accordingly, the prayer clause ought to have been allowed to be amended, as proposed.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record so also critically examined the impugned order dated 11^th April, 2018.

¶22

Indisputably, the petitioners along with Ramswaroop, Raju, Chhitar sons of Narayan and Chhitar son of Ladu have instituted the suit proceedings with reference to the same subject land claiming their possession since preceding 50 years, and therefore, sought the relief for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed on merits by the Court below on 20^th October, 2014, holding that the petitioners were not in possession of the subject land for preceding 50 years. The application seeking temporary injunction, in the subsequent instant suit proceedings, was declined on 6^th May, 2016; holding that the petitioners were not in possession of the land in dispute.

¶23

Be that as it may, once the possession of the petitioners was negatived by the adjudication in earlier suit proceedings on 20^th

¶24

(3 of 3) [CW-16174/2018]

¶25

October, 2014; which is under appeal, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners; the discretion exercised by the Court below while declining the amendment sought for by the petitioners vide impugned order dated 11^th April, 2018; suffers with no material illegality and/or irregularity so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

In the result, writ application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶27

No costs.

¶28

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶29

SS/110

Gopal S/O Late Shri Kalyan by Caste Mali v. Smt. Mangi Devi W/O Ramdev by Caste Mali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal S/O Late Shri Kalyan by Caste Mali v. Smt. Mangi Devi W/O Ramdev by Caste Mali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Kumar Prajapat Vs Dr Pradeep Kumar Goyal

Rajesh v Jobanputra Vs Branch Manager United News India Andors

Rajendra Prasad S/O Shri Amar Singh Vs Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar

Tarachand Shyoran Vs Shriram Transport Finance and Anr.

Padam Singh Parmar S/O Shri Ram Swaroop Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary

Mohanlal S/O Late Hanumanaram Vs State of Rajasthan