Shri Digamber Jain Panchayat Mahaveer Mandir Trust vs Satyanaryan S/o Shri Bilasiram Ji Devpura

The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, laying

challenge to an order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned

Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Bhilwara,

whereby petitioners'' application seeking amendment under Order

VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

The needful facts for deciding the present writ petitions, are

being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13048/2017; which

are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for eviction,

enhancement of rent and determination of standard rent in the

year 2001. In the said suit, petitioners have preferred an

application dated 17.03.2017 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, interalia seeking amendment in the plaint to

the effect that the market rent which has been mentioned as

Rs.2,500/- in paras No. 11 and 12 of the plaint be permitted to be

amended as Rs.30,000/- per month.

The petitioners had also sought inclusion of names of the

existing trustees of the trust. The trial Court has rejected

petitioners'' aforesaid application for amendment, interalia

observing that the amendment in the paras No.11 and 12 of the

plaint, seeking substitution of the standard rent from Rs. 2,500/-

to Rs. 30,000/- is uncalled for and with respect to the prayer

about substitution of name of the trustees, the Court below

observed that the plaintiffs have not produced any documentary

evidence, showing that the persons mentioned in the application

are the existing trustees.

Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting

petitioners'' application, seeking amendment, particularly when the

Trial Court had on an earlier occasion allowed plaintiffs'' application

under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code and permitted the document

and valuation report which evincing the approximate monthly rent

of the property in question as Rs.30,000/-.

Mr. Jain further contended that all the trustees mentioned in

the application are required to be impleaded as a plaintiffs in the

suit proceedings, and the order impugned is thus liable to be set

aside.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

material available on record.

In considered opinion of this Court, the application filed by

the plaintiffs, seeking to substitute the figure/amount of standard

rent from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.30,000/- is mis-concieved and

frivolous. If the amendment as claimed by the petitioners is

permitted to be carried out, it would relate back to the date of

institution of the suit whereas the rent of Rs.30,000/- is

admittedly current market rent. The Court is required to

determine the standard rent on the date of institution of the suit

and periodical increase in accordance with law.

As far as the substitution of the name of the trustees is

concerned, in view of the provisions of the Order XXXI of the Code

of Civil Procedure, all the trustees of registered trust are not

required to be impleaded as plaintiffs.

If the stand of the petitioners is accepted, then as a result of

each change in the Board of the trustees, the suit has to be

amended. The trustees are required to be impleaded only when

the suit is filed amongst the trustees themselves and not in the

cases where the trust itself has instituted the suit as against the

private defendants, particularly when it is a trust registered under

the Indian Trust Act .

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no substance and

force in these writ petitions at hand and the same are dismissed

hereby.