RASHID Vs. MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner -defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') and perused the impugned order dt. 11.10.2013, passed by the Gram Nayayalaya, Kaman, District Bharatpur. The learned Gram Nayayalaya has dismissed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the defendant in a suit laid by the respondents -plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') for permanent injunction. The Gram Nayayalaya has taken into consideration the facts that the defendant had filed his written statement to the plaintiff's suit on 08.11.2005. Thereafter issues were framed on 08.08.2006 and two of the plaintiffs' witnesses already had entered the witness box and concluded their evidence. The Gram Nayayalaya also was of the view that the defendant by way of amendment was seeking to effectively withdraw his averments in the written statement first made wherein he had stated that the suit property was a part of Government land whereas by way of the amendment he claimed that it belonged to him. Noting that it was inconceivable that the owner of a property would not be aware of his own ownership for a period of eight years, the Gram Nayayalaya has dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the defendant more particularly in view of the first proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court is of the opinion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In my considered opinion, the impugned order dt. 11.10.2013, passed by the Gram Nayayalaya is a very detailed and reasoned order taking into consideration the factual aspects as also the legal provisions applicable thereto in determining the defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Within the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned order dt. 11.10.2013, passed by the Gram Nayayalaya.

(2.) CONSEQUENTLY , the writ petition is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed. It is however made clear that the dismissal of the defendant's application for amendment by the Gram Nayayalaya under its order dt. 11.10.2013 and upholding thereof by this Court is limited to the question of the defendant's rights within the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.