Rajendra Singh and anr. Vs. Chandravir Singh and anr.

Rajendra Singh and anr. vs Chandravir Singh and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 16, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/766783

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/766783
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Bhagwati Prasad, J.
Decided On: Nov 16, 1999
Case Number: S.B.C. Revision Petition No. 899 of 1996
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17--Amendment of written statement--Divergent stands taken by plaintiff as regards nature of right to same property in two different suits--Such fact coming to the knowledge of defendant after filing the written statement--Amendment sought for in the written statement to be ...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajendra Singh and anr.

Respondent

Chandravir Singh and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: 2000WLC(Raj)UC277; 2000(2)WLN79

Excerpt

civil procedure code, 1908 - order 6 rule 17--amendment of written statement--divergent stands taken by plaintiff as regards nature of right to same property in two different suits--such fact coming to the knowledge of defendant after filing the written statement--amendment sought for in the written statement to be allowed.;revision petition allowed - bhagwati prasad, j.1. this revision petition has been filed against the order of the trial court refusing amendment. amendment was sought for by the defendants in their written statement the only fact which they want to incorporate in the written statement pertained to a stand taken by the plaintiff in some other proceeding which came to the notice of the petitioners subsequently. the petitioners came to know this after filing of their written statement. the suit in question is suit for injunction and possession of a property regarding which, in the present suit, the plaintiff has alleged that it has come by inheritance but in another pleading, he has alleged that property has come by way of 'bakhshishnama' and' he has acquired right over the property. the two stands taken in different proceedings are of different nature. incorporation of these facts would be in the interest of justice. this will help in deciding the issue arising out in between the parties.2. the respondents have urged that the trial court has permitted the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff in this regard. it has also been argued that the documents narrating these facts were sought to be produced under order 13 rule 2 cpc. the production of the same was refused by the trial court.3. i have considered the rival submissions. the fact sought to be incorporated has come to the notice of the defendants after filing of the written statement. a divergent stand is obvious in referred pleadings. unless these facts are brought on record, proper adjudication is not possible. in this view of the matter, this court is inclined to set aside the order of the trial court and direct the trial court to permit amendment as sought for by the petitioners. the order impugned is set aside and the trial court is directed to permit the petitioners to amend the written statement and then proceed with the matter.4. with these observations, the revision petition is allowed.

Full Judgment

Bhagwati Prasad, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the trial court refusing amendment. Amendment was sought for by the defendants in their written statement The only fact which they want to incorporate in the written statement pertained to a stand taken by the plaintiff in some other proceeding which came to the notice of the petitioners subsequently. The petitioners came to know this after filing of their written statement. The suit in question is suit for injunction and possession of a property regarding which, in the present suit, the plaintiff has alleged that it has come by inheritance but in another pleading, he has alleged that property has come by way of 'Bakhshishnama' and' he has acquired right over the property. The two stands taken in different proceedings are of different nature. Incorporation of these facts would be in the interest of justice. This will help in deciding the issue arising out in between the parties.

2. The respondents have urged that the trial court has permitted the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff in this regard. It has also been argued that the documents narrating these facts were sought to be produced under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC. The production of the same was refused by the trial court.

3. I have considered the rival submissions. The fact sought to be incorporated has come to the notice of the defendants after filing of the written statement. A divergent stand is obvious in referred pleadings. Unless these facts are brought on record, proper adjudication is not possible. In this view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the order of the trial court and direct the trial court to permit amendment as sought for by the petitioners. The order impugned is set aside and the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioners to amend the written statement and then proceed with the matter.

4. With these observations, the revision petition is allowed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1999 Same Parties Rajendra Singh and anr. vs Chandravir Singh and anr. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Bhagwati Prasad, J.

Civil