Dismissed

Lrs of Kalu Ram v. Jag Ram

Rajasthan HC25 Aug 2023CW/13491/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three connected writ petitions challenging an order rejecting an application for framing an additional issue under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC in an eviction suit pending since 2011. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that no new issue can be framed at the evidence stage and the application appeared to be a delay tactic.

What did the court decide?

The High Court did not grant the relief sought; the writ petitions were dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

Lrs of Kalu Ram Vs Jag Ram — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13491/2022

¶3

LR’s of Kalu Ram, Son Of Ram Rakh -

¶4

1/1 Bhupendra S/o Late Shri Kaluram, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh

¶5

1/2 Pawan S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh

¶6

1/3 Sharda D/o Late Shri Kalu Ram, Wife Of Shri Dharam Pal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

¶7

Sohan Lal S/o Shri Ram Rakh, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh

¶8

LR’s Of Nemi Chand, Son Of Shri Ram Rakh -

¶9

3/1 Munni Devi W/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Teh. Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶10

3/2 Prem S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Teh. Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶11

3/3 Ranveer S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Teh. Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶12

3/4. Suman D/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, W/o Mahendra Saharan, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of 15 S.g.r., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶13

3/5 Manju D/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, W/o Shri Anil Saharan, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of 15 S.g.r., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶14

Daya Ram Beniwal S/o Shri Ram Rakh, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶15

Dalip S/o Shri Ram Rakh, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners

[CW-13491/2022]

(2 of 8)

Versus

Jag Ram S/o Shri Ram Lal, By Caste Kumahar, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh At Present Resident Of Paliwala, Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

Connected With

¶23

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13125/2022

¶24

Legal Representative of Kalu Ram Son of Shri Ram Rakh:-

¶25

1/1 Bhupendra S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶26

1/2 Pawan S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶27

1/3 Sharda D/o Late Shri Kalu Ram, Wife Of Shri Dharam Pal, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

¶28

Sohan Lal S/o Shri Ram Rakh, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶29

Legal Representatives of Nemi Chand, Son of Shri Ram Rakh:-

¶30

3/1 Munni Devi W/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶31

3/2 Prem S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶32

3/3 Ranveer S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶33

3/4 Suman D/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, W/o Mahendra Saharan, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of 15 S.g.r., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶34

3/5 Manju D/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, W/o Shri Anil Saharan, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of 15 S.g.r., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶35

Daya Ram Beniwal S/o Shri Ram Rakh, Aged About 54

¶36

(3 of 8)

¶37

[CW-13491/2022]

¶38

Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶39

Dalip S/o Shri Ram Rakh, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶40

----Petitioners

¶41

Versus

¶42

Madu Ram S/o Shri Murlidhar, By Caste Kumahar, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶43

----Respondent

¶44

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13276/2022

¶45

Legal Representative of Kalu Ram, Son of Shri Ram Rakh:-

¶46

1/1 Bhupendra S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶47

1/2 Pawan S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶48

1/3 Sharda D/o Late Shri Kalu Ram, Wife Of Shri Dharam Pal, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Pakka Bhadwa, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

¶49

Sohan Lal S/o Shri Ram Rakh, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶50

Legal Representatives of Nemi Chand, Son of Shri Ram Rakh:-

¶51

3/1 Munni Devi W/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶52

3/2 Prem S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶53

3/3 Ranveer S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶54

3/4 Suman D/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, W/o Mahendra Saharan, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of

¶55

(4 of 8) [CW-13491/2022]

¶56

15 S.g.r., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶57

3/5 Manju D/o Late Shri Nemi Chand, W/o Shri Anil Saharan, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of 15 S.g.r., Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶58

Daya Ram Beniwal S/o Shri Ram Rakh, Aged About 54 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶59

Dalip S/o Shri Ram Rakh, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶60

----Petitioners

¶61

Versus

¶62

Sajana Devi W/o Late Shri Krishan Lal, By Caste Kumahar, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh At Present Resident Of Paliwala, Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶63

Tiku Ram S/o Late Shri Krishan Lal, By Caste Kumahar, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh At Present Resident Of Paliwala, Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶64

Rajendra S/o Late Shri Krishan Lal, By Caste Kumahar, Resident Of Village Pilibanga, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh At Present Resident Of Paliwala, Tehsil Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar.

¶65

----Respondents

¶66

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Gopi Ram Goyal on VC.
For Respondent(s)	: -

¶67

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment

¶68

Reserved on 21/08/2023 Pronounced on 25/08/2023

¶69

These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:

¶70

(5 of 8)

¶71

[CW-13491/2022]

¶72

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and;

¶73

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh;

¶74

(ii) further by an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued by allowing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure-4);

¶75

(iii) further by an appropriate writ, order or direction the learned trial Court may be directed to made additional issue according to the application of the petitioners/defendants or pleading of the parties;

¶76

(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners’

¶77

(v) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

¶78

Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction, mandatory and perpetual injunction against the petitioners/defendants before Court of learned Civil Judge, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh in the year 2011, whereupon the learned Court below, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed certain issues on 15.02.2013.

¶79

2.1 Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of the additional issue, whereupon the respondent/plaintiff filed a reply to the said application. The said additional issue sought to be framed reads as under:

¶80

(6 of 8) [CW-13491/2022]

¶81

“ vk;k oknh }kjk izLrqr iÍk esa of.kZr txg] izfroknhx.k ds LokfeRo o vf/kiR; ds iz”uxr Hkw[k.M esa vofLFr gSa A ”

¶82

2.1.1. The learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 rejected the said application. Hence, the present petitions have been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

¶83

Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the impugned order was passed by the learned Court below without going through the issues which have already framed and pleading of the suit, which is highly illegal and not justified in law. It was further submitted that location of the land as mentioned in the patta clearly indicates that the same was not under the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff, and therefore, it is necessary to frame the additional issue, as sought by the petitioners/defendants in the application in question.

¶84

3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the core issue in the suit relates to location and boundary as shown in the patta of the respondent/plaintiff, but the learned Court below passed the impugned order only on the ground of delay in filing the application.

¶85

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Court below ought to have framed the additional issue for proper adjudication of the aforementioned suit, and the same, as per the settled proposition of law, can be framed by the learned Court below at any stage of the suit; therefore, as per learned counsel the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶86

[CW-13491/2022]

¶87

(7 of 8)

¶88

3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Gunwant Singh Jhala Vs Dr. Yuvraj Singh Jhala & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3099/2018, decided on 06.03.2018 ).

¶89

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants as well as perused the record of the case alongwith judgment cited at the Bar.

¶90

This Court observes that the petitioners/defendants have filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing the aforementioned additional issue pertaining to the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The learned Court vide the impugned order 22.10.2021 rejected the said application.

¶91

This Court further observes that in the impugned order, the learned Court held that the issues were framed on 15.02.2013 after hearing the parties as also taken into due consideration their pleadings; consent of the parties was also there in regard to the issues so framed and the signature of the parties were also on record.

¶92

This Court also observes that the aforementioned suit is under trial, at the stage of evidence, and thus, now no new/additional issue can be framed, because on 15.02.2013, the learned Court below framed the issues pertaining to all the relevant aspects of the case, documents and pleading of the parties. This Court further observes that the aforementioned suit was filed in the year 2011 i.e. 12 years ago, which is still pending before the learned Court below, therefore, at this stage, now no

¶93

(8 of 8)

¶94

[CW-13491/2022]

¶95

new/additional issue can be framed, more particularly, when filing of the application in question by the petitioners/defendants seems to be an attempt to prolong and delay the trial of the suit.

¶96

The judgment cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioners also does not render any assistance to their case.

¶97

In light of the above observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions.

¶98

Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶99

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶100

667-SKant/-

Lrs of Kalu Ram v. Jag Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lrs of Kalu Ram v. Jag Ram

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

Raman Kumar Vs Union of India

Omprakash Vs Seeta Devi

C.T.O. Circle, Banswara Vs M/S Munat Jewellers

Smc Foods Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan

Subhash Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Kalu Ram Vs Sajana Devi