AMARNATH PAREEK Vs. VIMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs challenging two separate orders passed by the Trial Court dated 13.4.2015 and 14.2.2017 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. as well as the application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. for seeking amendment in the plaint and also for taking certain documents on record respectively.

(2.) Brief facts are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and mandatory injunction before the Trial Court against the defendants, including the subsequent purchasers of the property. During pendency of the suit proceedings, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application on 22.7.2013 for taking on record the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.4.2015. Thereafter also, the petitioners-plaintiffs again filed two applications under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C., which were dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.2.2017. Both these orders dated 13.4.2015 and 14.2.2017 have been challenged by the petitioners-plaintiffs in these two writ petitions.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted that the Trial Court has committed serious illegality in dismissing the applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment in the plaint since at the time of filing of the suit the petitionersplaintiffs were not having knowledge of the fact regarding passing of the judgment in favour of the defendants-respondents by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur-I dated 16.1.1967 and on coming to know about this fact they filed the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for seeking amendment in the plaint in the light of the subsequent developments as aforesaid. Counsel further submits that the Trial Court was also not right in rejecting their application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for seeking amendment in the plaint in the light of the fact that the defendants sold the land in dispute to respondents No. 4 and 5 and further submits that the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector was challenged by the petitioners-plaintiffs before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority allowed their appeal vide order dated 3.2.2016, therefore, the amendment in the plaint was necessary. So far as rejection of the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. is concerned, Counsel submitted that the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is also necessary to be taken on record to decide the controversy involved in the suit.