SITA RAM GUPTA Vs. GOPAL LAL AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with prayer to quash the order dated 2.8.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur passed in Civil Suit No. 153/2013 Gopal Lal v. Sitaram and Anr.

(2.) Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that plaintiff/non-petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit for partition and injunction against defendant/petitioner and defendant/non-petitioner No. 2 before the District Judge which was later on transferred to Additional District Judge No. 14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and the same is pending there. It was stated in the plaint that plaintiff and defendants are real brothers. Plot No. E-777 situated in front of Pratap Nursery, Awadhpuri Lal Kothi, Jaipur was allotted by U.I.T. in the name of Ramji Lal, read brother of the parties, which was purchased from the earnings of joint Hindu family. After death of Shri Mathura Lal (father of both the parties) family settlement was arrived on 2.2.1984, whereby property purchased in the name of plaintiff was given to Ramji Lal and the plot in question remained joint property of plaintiff and defendants. Defendants filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and pleaded that the plot in question was allotted by U.I.T. to Ramji Lal, therefore, he alone was absolute owner of the property in question and Ramji Lal gifted some part of the questioned property by way of separate registered gift deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, as such there is no question of partition and prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.

(3.) After filing of written statement, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. and another application under Order 8, Rule 9 of C.P.C. stating therein that after receiving the written statement, the plaintiff came to know that on 27.7.2012, Ramji Lal executed separate gift deeds in favour of defendants regarding some part of the property in question, for which he was not having legal authority in view of the family settlement dated 2.2.1984, therefore, amendments in the plaint are necessitated. It is further stated that defendants pleaded new, false and misleading facts in their written statement, as such it's denial is required by way of replica/rejoinder and requested for taking the rejoinder annexed with the application, on record. The defendant No. 1 filed reply of the plaintiffs application under Order 8, Rule 9 of C.P.C. stating therein that the plaintiff has not specified in the application as to which facts is new, false and misleading, therefore, permission cannot be given to file rejoinder, because nature of the suit may change, if the rejoinder is taken on record and prayed to dismiss the application filed under Order 8, Rule 9 of C.P.C.