Gomti Bai vs Goma Bai

Sujoy Paul, J

Heard.

This petition challenges the order dated 13.5.2014 whereby petitioners'' applications preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. are rejected by Court below by holding that the petitioners earlier filed similar applications which were rejected by the Court below. Against the orders passed by the Court below dt. 22.11.12 and 24.01.13 rejecting similar applications, petitioners preferred writ petition No. 975/13 which was dismissed. The petition seeking review, R.P. No. 483/13 was also dismissed and, therefore, similar applications cannot be entertained.

Criticizing this order, Shri Khedkar submits that the earlier amendment application was dismissed because proper court fee was not paid by the petitioners. Since it is now paid, amendment application needs to be entertained. During the course of argument, he submits that the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 975/13 and in R.P. No. 483/13 are bad in law and run against one D.B. judgment.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.

I wonder how this argument criticizing the order of coordinate bench can be advanced and entertained. In W.P. 975/13, this Court opined as under:-

In my opinion, the findings recorded by the trial Court are in accordance with law. The petitioners/plaintiffs want to introduce the pleadings, which would change the nature of the suit and even the jurisdiction of the Court because the petitioners valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 231/- and paid required Court fees of Rs. 580/-. For the purpose of recovery of possession and removal of construction they have to make value of the property and value of the land. The petitioners have to also challenge the sale deeds which were executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of other persons. Hence, in my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction in dismissing the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.

Similarly the petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for adding certain persons as party-defendants, who had made construction over the land and also the persons, who purchased the laid form the defendant No. 1. Sale deeds have also not been challenged by the petitioners in the suit.

In these circumstances, the trial Court has also rightly rejected the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

In absence of challenge to this order, it has attained finality. Review petition is admittedly not entertained. It is not the case of the petitioners that the subsequent applications (decided by impugned order) preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 are different in nature. The Court in W.P. No. 975/13 has not granted any liberty to the petitioners to file fresh applications after payment of required court fees. The underlined portion further shows that amendment application was also rejected on the ground that desired amendment will change the nature of case.

In this view of the matter, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Court below in not entertaining similar applications. I find no reason to interfere in the order impugned. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost.