Harinarayan Jat And Others vs Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara And Others

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (West), Bhilwara, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under sub-section 1, 2 & 4 of Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C. has been partly allowed.

Briefly noted the facts in the present case are that the petitioners preferred a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents (Annex.1). In the suit, the Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara & State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar were impleaded as party defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners preferred an application under sub-section 1, 2 & 4 of Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C. for impleading the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara as party defendant No.3. The learned trial court, vide order dated 30.06.2023, partly allowed the application preferred by the petitioners, however, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the pleadings has partly been allowed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the application preferred by the petitioners, the learned trial court has impleaded the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara as party defendant and has also allowed the prayer/relief clause to be added in the plaint against the newly added defendant, however, the pleadings on the basis of which the relief clause has been amended and the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara has been arrayed as party defendant, have been denied. Learned counsel submits that the order passed by the learned trial court, on the face of it, suffers from illegality as the pleadings on the basis of which the relief clause has been added in the plaint has not been allowed to be added in the pleadings by allowing the amendment prayer for. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order dated 30.06.2023 may be modified and the amended pleadings preferred by the petitioners in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC may be allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondents has formally opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, however, he is not in a position to refute the factual submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners as also the contents of the order dated 30.06.2023.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case including the order impugned dated 30.06.2023.

The undisputed facts clearly demonstrate that the learned trial court has allowed the application of the petitioners to the extent of impleading the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara as party defendant in the suit. It is also noted that the relief clause has been allowed to be amended in the plaint. However, the learned trial court rejected the application with respect to the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which formed the basis for impleading the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Bhilwara and amending the relief clause. In the opinion of this Court, if the application preferred by the petitioners has resulted into grant of relief to the petitioners, then the basis on which the same has been granted, cannot be denied.

In this view of the matter, the amendment sought for by the petitioners in the suit by filing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC merits acceptance and the same is, therefore, allowed. The learned trial court is directed to allow the petitioners to amend the plaint as sought for in the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

The writ petition as also the stay petition stand disposed of in the above terms.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.