Mandir Shri Raghav Ji Virajman Vs Banwarilal Maheshwari S/O Shri Sohanlal Maheshwari — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mandir Shri Raghav Ji Virajman Vs Banwarilal Maheshwari S/O Shri Sohanlal Maheshwari — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 25.11.2019 of the trial court set aside; application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC allowed; trial court directed to take the amended cause title on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant(s); pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the cause title by changing the sequence of defendant No. 1's name should be allowed, notwithstanding the trial court's dismissal on the ground that it would change defendant No. 1's capacity and the nature of the suit.

Court's answer

The trial court committed an error in dismissing the plaintiff's Order 6 Rule 17 CPC application, because the plaintiff wanted only to change the sequence of defendant No. 1's name.

Ratio / Principle

Changing the sequence of defendant No. 1's name would not affect the nature of the suit.

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed; the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the trial Court is set aside; the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed.ratio¶21
The trial court is directed to take the amended cause title filed by the plaintiff on record, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant(s).ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1428/2020, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, decided 10/01/2025 by Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha (single judge). The petitioner-mandir, plaintiff in civil suit No. 70/2007 (Senior Civil Judge, Chabra, Baran) seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, had applied under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC merely to correct the sequence of defendant No. 1's name in the cause title. By order dated 25.11.2019 the trial court dismissed the amendment application on the ground that allowing it would change defendant No. 1's capacity and the nature of the suit. This Court held that the trial court erred, since a mere change in the sequence of defendant No. 1's name would not affect the nature of the suit. The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, the Order 6 Rule 17 CPC application was allowed, and the trial court was directed to take the amended cause title on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant(s); pending applications were disposed of.

[2025:RJ-JP:1687]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1428/2020

Mandir Shri Raghav Ji Virajman, Ward No. 15, Raghav Sadan Through Bavilayat Chief Trustee Shri Surendra Bhargava, Aged About 52 Years, S/o Shri Chaturbhuj, R/o Chhabra, District Baran.

----Petitioner

Versus

Banwarilal Maheshwari S/o Shri Sohanlal Maheshwari, President Bharat Vikas Parishad Sewa Sansthan, Chhabra, Tehsil Chhabra, District Baran, Rajasthan.

Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Chhabra.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Deepak Mittal for Mr. Arvind
	Kumar Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)	: None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

10/01/2025

This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Chabra, Baran in civil suit No. 70/2007, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for permanent and mandatory injunction in which name of the defendant No. 1 was not typed in a sequence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2019 arbitrarily dismissed the

(2 of 2) [CW-1428/2020]

[2025:RJ-JP:1687]

application filed by the plaintiff on the ground that if the application is allowed defendant No. 1 capacity would be changed and nature of the suit would also be changed. So, the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC be allowed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order.

In my considered opinion, trial court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff because plaintiff wanted to change the sequence in the name of the defendant No. 1. So, nothing would be happened which could effect the nature of the suit. So, petition filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

Accordingly, the petition filed by the plaintiff is allowed. The order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed. The trial court is directed to take amended cause title filed by the plaintiff on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant(s).

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Tahir/281