Sambal Shikshan Sansthan Shivsinghpura vs Addl. Civil Judge

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.4.2012 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 2, Sikar, whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, Mr. Narsi Prasad Sharma, filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction along with temporary injunction application against the petitioner-defendants-Sambal Shikshan Sansthan, Shivsinghpura, Sikar. The Commissioner inspected the site and submitted his report on 18.2.2011. Meanwhile, the respondent-plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. By order dated 18.4.2012 allowed the said amendment application. Hence, this petition before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that according to the Commissioner''s report itself, it was clear that the construction raised by the defendant was already there when the Commissioner inspected the site. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the construction has/raised much before the plaint was even filed. Hence, there was no reason to permit the amendment in the plaint.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that even if the amendment were allowed, it would not change the nature of the suit. Moreover, as observed by the learned Magistrate, it is for the respondent-plaintiff to prove as to when the construction actually took place. Therefore, by permitting the amendment in the plaint that, too, at the initial stage of trial, no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that it was a case of the respondent-plaintiff that the petitioner-defendant has raised certain construction, especially the gate. Therefore, he wanted to amend the plaint. By allowing such an amendment, obviously the nature of the suit has not changed. Even if, the petitioner-defendant wishes to contradict the stand being taken by the respondent-plaintiff, they would have sufficient opportunities to do so. Since the trial is at the very initial stage, when even the issues have not been framed, by permitting the amendment, no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate. Thus, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is hereby, dismissed. The stay application, too, stands dismissed.