HANUMAN SEN Vs. SUBHAM AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sawai Madhopur whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondents -plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner -defendant on the ground that the defendant No. 2, Nagar Palika, Sawai Madhopur, allotted a strip of land which is in front of the plaintiffs' shop, to the petitioner -defendant. According to the plaint, allotment of the said strip of land is absolutely illegal. Therefore, the defendant cannot raise construction on the said land. The plea of easementary right was also raised in the plaint. The petitioner -defendant filed his written statement and stated that the strip of land was allotted to him by the Nagar Palika after following the due process of law and for this, the petitioner has also deposited Najarana fees of Rs. 3,49,610/ - with the Nagar Palika. The Nagar Palika has also granted permission to the petitioner to raise construction on the land in dispute. During pendency of the suit, the respondents -plaintiffs sold the shops to one Ramkesh. Therefore, the petitioner -defendant filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement so as to bring the fact of sale of the shops to Ramkesh on record. However, by order dated 13.2.2014, the learned trial court has dismissed the petitioner's application. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) SECONDLY , during the course of proceedings, on 10.7.2012 the respondents -plaintiffs had sold the shops to Ramkesh which were adjacent to the suit property. Therefore, subsequent development in the case had to be brought to the notice of the learned trial court by amending the written statement. Hence, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC had been filed. However, without noticing the fact that it was a subsequent development, without noticing the fact that sale of the shops belonging to the respondents -plaintiffs would have an impact on the suit and specially on the prayer sought in the suit, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application on illegal grounds.