Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM CHANDRA GURJAR versus CIVIL JUDGE (JD), KISHANGARH,

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAM CHANDRA GURJAR v CIVIL JUDGE (JD), KISHANGARH, - CW Case No. 3683 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 2788 (18 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

ORDER

Ram Chandra Gurjar and ors.

Versus

Civil Judge (Jr.Division) Kishangarh & ors.

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3683/2007

Date of Order : 18/5/2007.

CORUM

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Shri Ajay Gupta for the petitioners.

******

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 9/3/2007 whereby application of the plaintiff- espondent filed by him under Order 6 Rule 7 CPC seeking mendments in certain paras of the plaint has been llowed.

It is argued that the impugned-order is illegal nasmuch as, the amendments sought to be made could not ave been allowed because they were not based on any ubsequent development and fact which was reiterated was already known to the plaintiff from before. It was submitted that the learned trial court failed to consider that if those pleadings were not made by the plaintiff by exercise of due deligence in the suit originally filed, the pleadings cannot be allowed to be added subsequently.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the another writ petition having been filed by the plaintiff seeking amendments.

On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the trial court considered the fact that desired amendments would not in any manner alter the nature of the suit because all that the plaintiff was seeking to plead was about the dimensions and measurements of the property in dispute. On perusal of the application for amendment also I find that the amendments which were asked for, were to specify the dimensions and measurements of the dipsuted property. The amedments were made when the evidence of the plaintiff was yet to begin. It cannot therefore be said that it was belated.

Whether or not what is pleaded is proved will depend upon the evidence led by the parties and therefore at this stage, if the desired amendments are permitted, the same cannot said to have caused any grave prejudice to the plaintiff.

I do not find any error in the impugned-order.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.