Dismissed

Om Prakash Paliwal and Ors. v. a.D.J.Ft NO.4 Jaipur and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Sept 2019CW/8340/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application under CPC for deletion of new facts from the defendants' written statement. The High Court refused interference due to lack of restriction on amendment and the case's 30-year pendency. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed and all pending applications are disposed of.

Om Prakash Paliwal and Ors. Vs a.D.J.Ft… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8340/2007

¶3

Omprakash Paliwal S/o Late Mangilal, resident of House No.90, Bhatto Ki Gali, Paliwallon Ki Gali, Chokri Ramchandraji, Jaipur.

¶4

Smt. Annapurna Paliwal, wife of Sh. Govindswaroop Purohit, daughter of Late Sh. Mangilal at present resident of H.No.15, Eknath Society, Nadiyad, District Kheda (Gujrat).

¶5

Smt. Pushpa Paliwal, wife of Sh. Rajendra Kumar Paliwal, daughter of Late Sh. Mangilal, resident of Prem Nagar, Agra Road, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners-Plaintiffs

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Tract) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

¶9

Sh. Amarnath son of Late Sh. Tejshankar.

¶10

Sh. Omprakash son of Late Sh. Tejshankar. Both resident of Behind Dangi Factory, Ajad Nagar, Bhilwara.

¶11

Smt. Kokila Ben daughter of Sh. Chagan Bhai, wife of Sh. Ashok Bhai Patel, Resident of House No.2454, Maruji Ka Chowk, Nanulalji Sogani Ka Makanm Chowkari, Ghat Gate, Jaipur.

¶12

Bhairu Shankar son of Sh. Mangilalji, Resident of 90 Bhatto Ki Gali, Paliwallon Ki Gali, Chokri Ramchandraji, Jaipur.

¶13

----Respondents-Denfendants Narayanlal Paliwal S/o Late Sh. Mangilal, resident of House ...Proforma Respondent-Plaintiff

¶14

Narayanlal Paliwal S/o Late Sh. Mangilal, resident of House No.90, Bhatto Ki Gali, Paliwallon Ki Gali, Chokri Ram;chandraji, Jaipur.

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Ashok Sharma.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Rajeev Surana for respondent no.4.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶17

Judgment

¶18

05/09/2019

¶19

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging the order dated 09.08.2007 by which the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CW-8340/2007]

¶22

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for pre-amption and permanent injunction against the respondentsdefendants. During pendency of the said suit one of the plaintiff namely Smt. Suraj Devi had expired and her legal representatives were taken on record and the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted amended plaint and incorporated a new para 7b. The respondent no.4 (Smt. Kokila Ben), subsequent purchaser of the property in dispute, filed amended written statement and in para no.17 stated certain new facts. Thereafter, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application before the learned trial court under Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC for deleting certain part of para no. 17 of the written statement.

¶23

The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs vide order dated 09.08.2007, hence being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted that the learned trial court has committed a serious error in dismissing the application seeking deletion of certain part of the written statement by which the respondents-defendants have taken a new plea. Counsel further submits that if the pleading of which deletion was sought is allowed, it would be an abuse of the process of law. Counsel further submits that without filing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC the learned trial court is not justified in permitting to make amendment in the written statement.

¶25

Counsel for the respondents-defendants submitted that no bar/condition was put by the learned trial court while allowing the respondents-defendants to amend the written statement. Counsel

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-8340/2007]

¶28

further submits that after filing of the amended plaint the defendant has a right to file amended reply also.

¶29

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The writ petition filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, while allowing the amendment in the plaint the learned trial court has not made any restriction for the respondents-defendants in taking the new plea in the written statement; secondly, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners-plaintiffs as they have ample opportunity to submit documentary evidence in support of their case before the learned trial court; thirdly, since the matter is pending before the learned trial court for last about 30 years, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.

¶30

Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶31

All the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶32

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶33

MG/49

Om Prakash Paliwal and Ors. v. a.D.J.Ft NO.4 Jaipur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Paliwal and Ors. v. a.D.J.Ft NO.4 Jaipur and Ors.

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

Dinesh Sharma S/O Shri Braj Mohan Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Rai Singh S/O Lal Chand B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Dayanand Sharma S/O Late Shri Jagannath B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Bindu@Mintu S/O Sobharam B/C Od Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharwan Kumar S/O Chhoturam B/C Balai Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Singh S/O Ramsingh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan