Dismissed

Ramesh Chand Goyal Son of Shimbhu Dayal Goyal v. Bhagwati Devi Wife of Late Ram Singh

Rajasthan HC11 Apr 2022CW/2946/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against the trial Court's order dismissing an application for amending the written statement to include payment details alleged to be omitted due to a typographical error. The High Court found the amendment lacked bona fide grounds and was sought to protract litigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; costs of Rs. 2,000/- directed to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.

Ramesh Chand Goyal Son of Shimbhu Dayal Goyal Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2946/2022

¶3

Ramesh Chand Goyal Son Of Shimbhu Dayal Goyal, Resident Of Thethran Mohallan, Rajgarh, District Alwar.

¶4

----Defendant-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bhagwati Devi Wife Of Late Ram Singh, Since Deceased Through Her Legal Heirs:-

¶7

1/1. Raj Singh Son Of Late Shri Ram Singh, Resident Of Rajgareh, District Alwar.

¶8

1/2. Om Prakash Son Of Late Shri Ram Singh, Resident Of Rajgareh, District Alwar.

¶9

1/3. Manoj Kumar Son Of Late Shri Ram Singh, Resident Of Rajgareh, District Alwar.

¶10

1/4. Beena Daughter Of Late Shri Ram Singh, Resident Of Rajgareh, District Alwar.

¶11

1/5. Usha Daughter Of Late Shri Ram Singh, Resident Of Rajgareh, District Alwar. ----Plaintiffs/Non-petitioners

¶12

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

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶14

Order

¶15

11/04/2022

¶16

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, Alwar in Civil Suit No.34/153/2013 whereby an application filed by the petitioner/defendant/tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-2946/2022]

¶19

The facts in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a

¶20

suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner in the year 2013. The petitioner filed his written statement on 13.01.2014. During course of trial, the petitioner moved an application dated 04.10.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement to the effect that at the time the property was let out to him on 01.08.1991, the petitioner has given a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as security to the plaintiff refund whereof he was entitled with interest. It was averred that on account of typographical error, this fact could not be mentioned in the written statement. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.01.2022, impugned herein.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on account of bonafide error, the facts for which amendment was sought, could not be incorporated in the written statement, hence the learned trial Court erred in dismissing his application. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and he may be permitted to incorporate the facts mentioned in the application by way of amendment in the written statement.

¶22

Heard. Considered.

¶23

In the present case, written statement in the suit filed by the respondent for eviction, was filed on 13.01.2014. Plaintiff’s evidence was over on 26.05.2017. The order impugned reveals that the facts in question were also mentioned by the defendant in his reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff before filing the suit for eviction and the reply to the notice was exhibited on 26.05.2017; but, lapse of about five years thereafter, the present

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-2946/2022]

¶26

application seeking amendment was filed. This Court has gone through the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and is not satisfied with reason assigned therein for delay; i.e., typographical error for omission of the facts in the written statement. The application does not satisfy the requirement of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the application was not filed bonafidely; but, to protract the litigation only. Even otherwise also, the learned trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the learned counsel for applicant failed to satisfy as to how the amendment sought was necessary for just and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the matter.

¶27

This writ petition is wholly misconceived and is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of four weeks from today.

¶28

In view of longibility of the suit pending for eviction, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite its trial and conclude the same as early as possible.

¶29

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶30

MADAN/65

Ramesh Chand Goyal Son of Shimbhu Dayal Goyal v. Bhagwati Devi Wife of Late Ram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Goyal Son of Shimbhu Dayal Goyal v. Bhagwati Devi Wife of Late Ram 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

Jyoti D/O Amar Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Anurag Choudhary S/O Shri Ummed Singh Vs Rajasthan High Court

Pooran Lal Saini Vs State and Ors.

Ritu Kumari D/O Uday Lal Khateek W/O Shri Ratan Lal Chandel Vs the State of Rajasthan

Suresh Chandra Son of Shri Harfhool Singh Vs the Principal Secretary

Suresh Kumar Jangid S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan