SUMAN KANWAR Vs. PURAN MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Smt. Suman Kanwar, is aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending her written statement.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the learned Magistrate with regard to the title and ownership of Plot No. 24, Jai Nagar, Nathu Cycle Wale Ki Gali, Harmara, Sikar Road, Jaipur. However, they did not implead the petitioner as a party -defendant. When the petitioner came to know about the existence of the said civil suit, she immediately filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. By order dated 16.11.2005, the learned trial court allowed the said application. Subsequently the petitioner filed her written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. According to her, she is the owner of the plot in dispute and in fact is in possession of the said plot. It is the case of the petitioner that after she filed the written statement, the respondents -plaintiffs filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the President, the Secretary of Jai Ambay Cooperative Housing Society and against her. Moreover, another person, Mr. Murari Lal, also filed another FIR. However, after a thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative Final Reports in both the FIRs. Subsequently the petitioner moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending her written statement and for bringing on record the facts with regard to filing of the FIRs by the respondents -plaintiffs, and by Murari Lal and with regard to filing of negative Final Reports by the police. However, by the impugned order, the said application has been dismissed. Hence, this petition before this court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Ajay Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently contended that the petitioner has to prove her case by submitting her own evidence. A mere finding given by the Investigating Officer is, at the best, an opinion and is not binding on the trial court. If the petitioner wishes to prove her title and her possession, the opinion of the Investigating Officer in a criminal case would be irrelevant to the stand being taken by her. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing her application. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.