RAMNIWAS Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE, AJMER & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.2.2014 passed by the SDO, Beawar, Dist. Ajmer whereby the SDO has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and has declined to permit him to amend the written statement after sixteen long years. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 28.4.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby the learned Board has upheld the order dated 4.2.2014 and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Prahlad Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, once the plaint was permitted to be amended, and subsequent development of the case were permitted to be taken on record, the petitioner-defendant has a right to amend his written statement. In order to exercise this right, the petitioner, in fact, filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. Hence, ipso facto the said application should have been allowed by the learned trial court. Relying on the cases of Pankaja & Anr. v. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., 2004 AIR(SC) 4102 and Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. & Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 2511 the learned counsel has pleaded that even if the amendment sought was delayed, even then it should have been allowed.

(3.) Secondly, relying on the case of Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy & Ors., 2001 7 JT 112, the learned counsel has pleaded that the rules governing pleadings are incorporated in order to advance the interest of justice, and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, any amendment proposed by the petitioner should have been allowed as it would have advanced the interest of justice, and would have avoided multiplicity of litigation.