Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1172 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lalji Chaturvedi Respondent :- Gajanand Chaturvedi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.S. Sharma,Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 25.4.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura in Original Suit No.1075 of 1994, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected as well as the order dated 25.11.2017, whereby revision has been dismissed and the order passed by the trial court has been upheld.
The petitioner has filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the disputed house. The petitioner filed an application Paper No.322 Ka seeking amendment of the plaint. By the amendment sought, the petitioner wanted to introduce a plea to the effect that in proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C., an order has been passed on 23.5.1995 by this Court wherein the possession of the petitioner has been accepted. The trial court has rejected the amendment application observing that in paragraph 11 of the plaint, the petitioner had pleaded about the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has filed certified copies of the orders passed by this Court in those proceedings by way of Paper Nos.26 Ka and 27 Ka. The court has observed that after 20 years of the finalization of those proceedings, the certified copies whereof had already been taken on record long back, there is no justification on part of the petitioner in seeking amendment of the plaint giving details of those proceedings. The trial court was thus of the opinion that the amendment sought was malafide, as the necessary facts in respect of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are already pleaded.
Concededly, the suit filed by the petitioner is for permanent prohibitory injunction. The entire basis for instituting the suit is that the petitioner had been in possession of the suit property and the defendants are interfering in his possession. It is also not disputed that in paragraphs 11 and 17 of the plaint, the petitioner has made reference to proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has already brought on record the certified copies of the orders passed in those proceedings in support of his plaint case that the possession of the suit property is with the petitioner and not the defendants. Thus, the amendment sought by the petitioner after 20 years of the conclusion of those proceedings stating that those proceedings had been decided in his favour is wholly malafide, apart from being highly belated. The judgement of the Court in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. would be a piece of evidence in support of his claim that he has been in possession of the suit property. In the opinion of the Court, it was not at all necessary to permit the petitioner to incorporate a plea to the effect that as to what was the outcome of those proceedings, as the same is matter of evidence, and in regard whereof, certified copies of the orders passed in those proceedings have already been brought on record. Thus, by rejection of the amendment application, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in Jai Karan Singh and othrs Vs. Balak Ram and others 2014 (105) ALR 500 in support of his contention that details of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should be permitted to be incorporated in the plaint. In that case it was held that the amendment sought was not malafide, nor there was delay in seeking amendment. The judgement is therefore not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find it a fit case to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 23.2.2018 SL