Dismissed

Bhagwati Prasad Son of Shri Harinarain v. Smt. Vimla Wife of Amar Singh

Rajasthan HC29 Mar 2022CW/15181/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to amend a plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Court held that no interference was warranted as the application was non-bona fide and filed too late.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without allowing the application for amendment in the plaint.

Bhagwati Prasad Son of Shri Harinarain Vs Smt. Vimla… — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15181/2021

¶3

Bhagwati Prasad Son Of Shri Harinarain, Resident Of Kailai (Dubbi) Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Vimla Wife Of Amar Singh, Resident Of Kailai, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶7

Pawan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Kailai, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶8

Sahil Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Kailai, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶9

Narendra Singh, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Kailai, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶10

Smt. Keshar Wife Of Prahlad Singh, Resident Of Kailai, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶11

Kamla Kanwar Daughter Of Prahlad Singh, Resident Of Kailai, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶12

Sushila Kanwar Daughter Of Prahlad Singh, Resident Of Kailai, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶13

Santosh Kanwar Daughter Of Prahlad Singh, Resident Of Kailai, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶14

Smt. Sarita Wife Of Rajendra Singh, Resident Of Dausa, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.

¶15

Smt. Chandrakanta Wife Of Dilipchand Jain, Resident Of Dausa, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi Mr. Shailendra Kumar For Respondent(s) :

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

29/03/2022

(2 of 3)

[CW-15181/2021]

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sikrai, District Dausa whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been dismissed.

¶24

The facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction. At the stage of final arguments in the suit, the plaintiff filed an application dated 11.10.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Section 151 CPC stating therein that during the course of preparing the case for final arguments, it transpired that in the sale deed executed by defendants No. 5 to 7 in favour of defendants No. 9 and 10, the sellers have represented themselves to be daughters of Amar Singh whereas, they are daughters of Prahlad Singh. It was submitted that at the time of death of a Prahlad Singh in the year 1999, his daughters did not have any right in the ancestral property and hence, they have misrepresented themselves to be daughter of Amar Singh in the sale deed. Consequential amendment in the plaint was sought. The learned trial Court vide order dated 29.10.2021 impugned herein, dismissed the application.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended the amendment sought goes to the root of the matter and was necessary for just and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the suit. He, therefore, prayed that the order impugned dated 29.10.2021 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC be allowed.

Heard. Considered.

(3 of 3)

[CW-15181/2021]

A perusal of the record reveals that on an earlier occasion also, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint assailing the legality and validity of the sale deed dated 06.02.2012 executed by the defendants No. 6 to 8 in favour of defendants No. 9 and 10 which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 19.01.2018. It is also revealed that consequent thereto, an additional issue No. 10A was also framed to the effect as to whether the sale deed dated 06.02.2012 executed by defendants No. 6 to 8 in the favour of defendants No. 9 and 10 was null and void against the rights of the plaintiff.

¶30

Thus, the plaintiff was already aware of the sale deed dated 06.02.2012 and its contents thereof. No reason is forthcoming in the application dated 11.10.2021 filed by the petitioner as to why no such amendment was sought on earlier occasion when he filed similar application based on the self-same sale deed. The application seeking amendment has been filed when the case was already fixed for final arguments. Therefore, the applicant does not seem to be bonafied also.

¶31

Learned trial Court has passed the order impugned in its judicious discretion taking into consideration each and every aspect of the matter which does not warrant any interference of this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶33

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶34

LAKSHYA SHARMA /217

Bhagwati Prasad Son of Shri Harinarain v. Smt. Vimla Wife of Amar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwati Prasad Son of Shri Harinarain v. Smt. Vimla Wife of Amar Singh

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

Aavas Financers Limited Vs Smt. Godawari Devi W/O Shri Narpat Ram

Tekram S/O Sh. Premraj Vs Satpal S/O Sh. Premraj

Rudi Devi W/O Ramu @ Ramlal Vs Prem Devi D/O Ramu @ Ramlal W/O Prahlad

Hina Restaurant Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhajan Lal Gunapal Vs Raj Housing Board and Ors.

Ujjwal Tak S/O Omprakash Tak Vs State of Rajasthan