Defendants challenged a trial court order allowing plaintiffs' amendment of a plaint for permanent injunction to plead that a sale deed was null and void to the extent of plaintiffs' rights. The High Court held the amendment did not alter the suit's nature at the issue-framing stage and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:46668]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17316/2015
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.I Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 12/11/2024
This petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.10.2015 passed by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Tijara Alwar, whereby the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to amend the plaint has been allowed.
[2024:RJ-JP:46668]
[CW-17316/2015]
(2 of 2)
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. As the disputed property was sold by defendant No.1-Mali Bai to the defendant No.4-Kashmir Singh, the plaintiffs sought amendment in the plaint that the said sale deed was null and void to the extent of their rights. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the trial Court vide order dated 17.10.2015 has wrongly allowed the application for amendment in the plaint. So, order dated 17.10.2015 passed by the trial Court be set aside because the plaintiffs have enlarged the scope of the plaint.
None present on behalf of the plaintiffs.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and perused the impugned order dated 17.10.2015.
It is an admitted position that trial court while allowing the amendment application clearly mentioned that the case is presently at the stage of framing the issues and while allowing the amendment, the nature of suit would not be altered/changed and defendants had opportunity to rebut the same. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the amendment application. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
AVINASH GULERIA /65
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiffs' application to amend the plaint to challenge a sale deed when issues had not yet been framed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kashmir Singh
Kashmiro
Chimman Singh
Pritam Singh
Jaswinder Singh
Malibai
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
