Dismissed

Raj Kapoor S/O Hari Singh v. Chiddhi Alias Chiddu Singh S/O Sheoli

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2021CW/1375/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order dismissing a Writ Petition noted for conceiv al implications. The Court vacated an interim order, held the trial Court did not err in accepting an amendment suit seeking restoration of possession given evidence on prior constructions requires subsequent ascertainment, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; all pending applications were dismissed.

Raj Kapoor S/O Hari Singh Vs Chiddhi Alias… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1375/2020

¶3

Raj Kapoor S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 53 Years, Residents Of Village Garh Thok Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chiddhi Alias Chiddu Singh S/o Sheoli, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Garh Thok, Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶7

Yaduvir Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Village Garh Thok Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶8

Hitlar S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Village Garh Thok Sinsini, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

02/08/2021

¶14

The matter comes up on an application (1/2021) for extension of stay order passed on 03.02.2020.

¶15

In view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299 , the interim order passed by this Court requires to be extended within six months, however, the same has not been extended.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-1375/2020]

¶18

Keeping in view thereof, the interim order would have to be vacated and the same is accordingly vacated.

¶19

Learned counsel was heard on merits. An application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed by the plaintiff submitting therein that after he filed the suit, certain constructions were made and therefore, he sought an amendment in his suit. The prayer for restoration of the possession is restored. Prior to making such constructions, the said application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 28.11.2019.

¶20

Learned counsel further submitted that the constructions were already made prior to filing of the suit and therefore, the amendment ought to have been rejected by the trial Court. Learned counsel further submitted that he has filed the reply and pointed out that the plaintiff had admitted about such constructions.

¶21

I have considered the submissions and perused the order passed by the Court.

¶22

This Court finds that relying upon the judgments passed from time to time by the Court as well as Apex Court, the trial Court has proceeded to accept the application and has observed that so far as the fact whether the constructions have been made prior to the filing of the suit itself is the subject matter of evidence, which is to be recorded subsequently. Adjudication regarding the same would be a subsequent aspect. However, at the primary stage, an amendment is sought even before framing of issues. As such, no objection can be raised by the defendant. This Court finds that the order being methodical taking into consideration all the aspects, does not warrant any interference.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CW-1375/2020]

¶25

The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly

¶26

dismissed.

¶27

All the pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶28

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶29

TN/160

Raj Kapoor S/O Hari Singh v. Chiddhi Alias Chiddu Singh S/O Sheoli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kapoor S/O Hari Singh v. Chiddhi Alias Chiddu Singh S/O Sheoli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Singh and Anr. Vs State Panchayati Raj Ors.

Manish Rav @ Chiku Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash @ Bhaga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Badri Lal Jaat Son of Chithar Jaat Vs State of Rajasthan

Revant Ram Moond Filling Station Vs Principal Secretary, PWD

Bholaram Son of Ganpat Vs Sitaram