Allowed

Smt. Premvada and Ors. v. Narayan Lal Mali

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2019CW/9908/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed two connected writ petitions rejecting impugned orders dated 27.11.2008 dismissing amendment applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The High Court set aside the trial court's rejection based on delay and directed the trial court to proceed with the amendments regarding property boundaries and material alterations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of 27.11.2008 set aside; amendment applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allowed; trial court directed to proceed accordingly; other pending applications disposed.

Smt. Premvada and Ors. Vs Narayan Lal Mali — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9910/2008

¶4

Smt. Premvada And Ors.

----Petitioner

Versus

Kheema Ram Kalbi S

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9908/2008

¶11

Smt. Premvada And Ors.

----Petitioner

Versus

Narayan Lal Mali

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)	: Mr.S.Saruparia & Mr.Pritam Solanki. : None present.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶17

Order

¶18

14/08/2019

¶19

Both these writ petitions are heard and decided together by this common order as common question of facts and law is involved.

¶20

The applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the plaintiffs petitioners seeking amendment were rejected by the impugned orders dated 27.11.2008.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment was occasioned as it was learnt that the boundaries were erroneously mentioned and was actually a bonafide amendment so that the boundaries of the property in question are

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

clearly identified. The rent was never offered to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs, therefore, sought amendment to that effect also. The plaintiffs further sought amendment relating to material alteration in the property. By the impugned orders, the trial Court has rejected the applications on the ground of delay.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings were pending before the High Court in relation to the case and, therefore, the applications could not be filed at that time. So far as the amendments sought are concerned, they were relevant for the purpose of the suits filed seeking eviction. It is submitted that merely on the ground of delay, the applications ought not have been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment passed by this Court in Ramji Lal Nai vs. Civil Judge Jr. Division, Bamanwas & Ors reported in 2019(2) DNJ (Raj.) 604 , wherein this Court has examined the law relating to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 and the factors to be taken into consideration, the writ petition was allowed.

¶25

I have considered the submissions and find that in Revajeetu’s case (supra), all the factors were directed to be taken into consideration. Recently in the case of N.C. Bansal vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation & Ors. Reported in 2018(2) SCC 347 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again affirmed the aforesaid view.

¶26

Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.11.2008 are set aside. The application

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

moved by the petitioners seeking amendment are allowed. The trial Court shall proceed accordingly.

¶29

All pending applications also stand disposed.

¶30

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶31

119-120-SPhophaliya/-

Smt. Premvada and Ors. v. Narayan Lal Mali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Premvada and Ors. v. Narayan Lal 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

Madan Lal Soni Vs Lrs of Rupa

Harish and Anr. Vs Smt.Meenu and Ors.

Om Prakash Saharan Vs Kaiya and Ors.

Vikram Vs Raichand

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs Bajaj Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Raghunandan @ Raju Vs Man Singh and Ors.