Allowed

Badri Lal v. Lrs of Late Shri Banshi Lal

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2021CW/7885/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan issued a writ of certiorari to quash an impugned order rejecting an amendment application in a specific performance suit. The court held that the amendment was justified to prevent the case from becoming stale after 11 years of delay, allowing the petitioner's amendment application in the nature of the suit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Badri Lal Vs Lrs of Late Shri Banshi Lal — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7885/2010

Badri Lal

----Petitioner

Versus

Lrs Of Late Shri Banshi Lal

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

08/11/2021

¶12

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned

¶13

This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶14

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that a Writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order dated 21^st July, 2010 passed in Civil Original Suit No.19/2007 by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimbahera, District – Chittorgarh (Raj.), be quashed and set aside and the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, be allowed as prayed for.”

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement dated 03.01.1994 in respect of Plot No.186 situated in Adarsh Colony, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that in relation to

¶16

(2 of 3) [CW-7885/2010]

¶17

the aforementioned suit for specific performance, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was also preferred by the petitioner, but the same was rejected cursorily vide the impugned order dated 21.07.2010.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards an interim order dated 25.08.2010 passed in the instant petition, which reads as follows:

¶19

“Issue notice, returnable within a period of two weeks. Issue notice of the stay application also. Notices be given ‘dasti’ to the learned counsel for the petitioner for service upon the respondents.

¶20

In the meanwhile, further proceedings in Suit No.19/07 pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nimbahera, shall remain stayed till the next date.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a minor change in the pleadings would not have affected the nature of the suit, and the same was thus justified, as the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the Courts ought to be liberal while exercising jurisdiction under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC so as to conform to the principles of effective adjudication.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

¶23

(a) Rameshkumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited & Ors., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 337;

¶24

(b) State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Modern Tent House & Anr., reported in (2017) 8 SCC 567;

¶25

(c) Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. Vs. Nandram (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors., reported in (2015) 13 SCC 132;

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-7885/2010]

¶28

(d) Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157;

¶29

(e) Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc. Vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc., reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3956.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, while submitting that the change in the nature of the suit, that too, at a belated stage, cannot be permissible.

¶31

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as seeing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at Bar, this Court is of the opinion that in the given facts and circumstances, it would have been appropriate, if the learned court below would have allowed the amendment application and allow the civil proceedings to come an end, as it is cause of great worry that for last 11 years, the interim order has held up the trial, leaving the whole cause to become a stale case. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the suit for specific performance, the impugned order dated 21.07.2010 is quashed and set aside, and accordingly, the amendment sought by the petitioner, which is relevant to the suit for specific performance, particularly, the agreement between the parties in question, is allowed.

¶32

The present petition stands allowed in the above terms. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶34

42-SKant/-

Badri Lal v. Lrs of Late Shri Banshi Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Badri Lal v. Lrs of Late Shri Banshi Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shrawan Singh Vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

Sukhi Devi and Ors. Vs Jagdish Prasad and Ors.

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Kamlesh

Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Vs State of Rajasthan