Dismissed

Prem Narayan S/O Late Shri Amba Lal v. Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Madan Lal Yadav D/O Late Shri Amba Lal Yadav

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2019CW/8131/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an amendment application in a civil suit. The court held that the writ petition was significantly delayed and therefore did not warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not entertained due to delay.

Prem Narayan S/O Late Shri Amba Lal Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8131/2019

¶3

I. Prem Narayan S/o Late Shri Amba Lal, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Yadav, R/o Gram Baad Peethawas Urf Badaraama, Tehsil And District Jaipur.

¶4

Karma Devi D/o Late Shri Amba Lal W/o Shri Anil Yadav, B/c Yadav, R/o 3-Tha-I, Ratan Duggad Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

T- --

¶6

1. Ku. Anita D[o$ +atk4;gh:~i , ~!m'ba,kal,~~/c hi c <.Yadav, R/o Gram Baad Peethawas'Urf ~adaraarna'; Tehsil And District Jaipur.

¶7

Ku. +,Gu,ddi ."" D/o Late Shri Amba Lal, B/c Yadav, R/o Gram aad~eethawas % ci-.k7 Urf Badaraama, Tehsil ~nd District Jaipur. ,. 5. ;

¶8

.Q. %,

¶9

**_+b8k.J-qn.e_* ----,petitioners

¶10

Versus \ Smt. Lali Devi W/o a$e~~.$i;~:?ly.T J --ql I ";." ;9 ; aklhn : iiys nnta,l Yadav D/o Late S hri <'&k.> , %.?A,, 1.: Amba La1 Yadav, By& fey.Il. $hhedtjF$p.~o:f yyk ~7. . ii .* n ? ~,~~;Baad Peethawas Urf zc< ,= Badaraama, Tehsil ~nd.'%~tfict aQbr reehtly Residing At R/o 1088, Unda Mahadev Ka;dhgwk, amanj Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) .< ? _6 y_* ' $. ,t. .. :,;- .I .b *e 2;. pi;fA,$:,% *i ' " ; ( R' -: ; &,:; , . ;,: A :$, + 2x! g: A%'& . ** . , , w/s. . , F ----Respondent t;+;c&{ii$s ?+' ,FQt$; +&! , ,:< "' ' c "~6': F ;~; -z. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.. J.R. Chaudhary For Respondent(s) f..

¶11

.:?' .g,i * ..gt;b f.. ?:? 2 r,. * p ? ; . ~, &> c. ... L-L <32&=& $ t2; .,-$%$;, 5; g * '.& '1 ; " S :? , %ti..,.: i ...I a!i. - fh HONIBLE MR~ $USTI~€ASHOK ?KUMAR GAUR

¶12

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.10.2017 by which the amendment application filed by the petitioners-defendants has been rejected. The court below has come to the conclusion that the statement of plaintiff was recorded on 21.11.2016 and thereafter dates were given to the petitioners-defendant to lead evidence on 22.12.2016 and 04.02.2017.

¶13

The petitioners-defendants did not produce any evidence and on 08.03.2017, moved an application for seeking amendment in the written statement.

¶14

This court finds that the court below has not committed any error in law in rejecting the application of the petitionersdefendants. The court below considered the fact that the amendment which was sought - to ,be made in the written + $+. 3,, .7' . >> - .tI. <4 y **ir,.:,** .> ..t statement was \yell'iwthe k"owledge ofkth,d pbtitioners-defendants and moving an application, after producing evidence of the - y'" , %-t 1.. plaintiff .was not bona fide. @(ZfXS k. *

¶15

Mr. J. Chaudhary, counsel for the petitioners i defendant has submit&& I .% .::. . :&I$,. . .+r,. ; =. the , amendment, which is sought $ ..." e 4 %p48*~ gpLe::~si~~~ b~..; ir -24- M;^.r" ,b, ..,a -- under Order 6 Rule lj9~,@it.~~~foi."?5~~,~~j,@~~~t'he .;';;$ PX .. t.; '*;;. ,. 4E i ?L pleadings can be ,& 3 k?r .. .?>V, <r >2 +;LA &, ::: , fT 2' ,?'- am!f .: 4 " : entertained by the couit"."bowiat relevant stage and further the : : 5 i new or additional pleadinss; :tf!;a:r& taken, not changing the nature ; 3 1 of suit, the amendment SUI~ b:e 5$llkjwed. % This court fin$$:. tha$.&e: . i court below has taken into P! ri ('k i ' A,.-.,.> account the fact with regvqrd *fokpm$iedoG 'bf evidence of plaintiff A and further the amendment, which was sought to be made was ..'" . . "- ..'> well within the knowled~.e'cof.fhe '+ ip ;Keti,tioqQrs-defendants b while filing of the written statement and as such the amendment has not been allowed.

¶16

This court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the court below and the petition is also not entertained as this court further finds that the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition, was passed on 28.10.2017 and the petition

¶17

has been filed on 05.04.2019. The interference by this court, at this stage, is not justified.

¶18

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

Prem Narayan S/O Late Shri Amba Lal v. Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Madan Lal Yadav D/O Late Shri Amba Lal Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Narayan S/O Late Shri Amba Lal v. Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Madan Lal Yadav D/O Late Shri Amba Lal Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajasthan State Co-Operative Consumer Federation Limited Vs Fateh Singh S/O Shri Kalyan Singh

Hari Shankar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Baldev Singh Fauzdar S/O Shri Atar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Salim/ Mohammad Salim S/O Abdul Karim Vs Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Sh. Prakash Chand Sharma

Ramesh Kumar S/O Laxminarayan Vs Maliram S/O Late Shri Shiv Ratan Darji

Smt. Mainadevi W/O Shri Santosh Kabra Vs Rajesh Odaka S/O Late Ramprasad Odaka