AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Chauhan, J.—In pursuance of the public notice issued by this Court inviting the litigants to appear before the Court in order to plead their case in the absence of their counsel, as the learned members of the Bar are on strike, Mr. Mahesh Chand appears before this Court.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.7.2013 whereby Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Metropolitan Magistrate-East, Jaipur Metropolitan, had accepted an application filed by respondent No. 2 and his legal representatives under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, and, on the other hand, has rejected an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioners.
It is pertinent to point out that before passing of this order this Court had specifically asked Mr. Mahesh Chand whether he would like to argue the case, or he would like to seek an adjournment as the learned members of the Bar are abstaining from work? He clearly informed this Court that he would like to argue the case. Therefore, this Court has heard his pleas at length.
Mr. Mahesh Chand has raised the following pleas before this court: with regard to the application submitted by the respondent which has been accepted by the learned Magistrate, he has pleaded that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was submitted beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, it should not have been accepted at all. Moreover, the facts mentioned in the application were known to the respondent when he had filed his written-statement. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in giving the respondent a chance to amend the written-statement by the impugned order.
Furthermore, with regard to the application of the petitioners which was rejected, he has pleaded that since a chance to amend the written-statement was given to the respondent, an equal chance should be given to the petitioner to amend his plaint. However, the learned Magistrate has failed to give such equal treatment to the petitioners.
Heard Mr. Mahesh Chand, and perused the impugned order as well as considered the applications filed both by the petitioners, and by the respondent.
A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has noticed the fact that the application moved by the respondent was beyond the period of limitation. However, he has imposed a cost of Rs. 1500/- and has condoned the delay.
Secondly, the information submitted by the respondent through their application for amendment was an information that they had gathered after submitting applications under the RTI Act. Even if the said information was known to him, it could not have been mentioned in the written-statement as the documents for buttressing these pleas were not available till the information was procured under the RTI Act.
Moreover, the learned Magistrate has noticed the fact that even if the amendment were permitted since the case had yet to enter the stage of evidence of the plaintiff i.e. the petitioners, would have ample opportunities to contest the facts mentioned by the respondent in the amended written-statement. Thus, no injustice would be caused to the petitioners. The logic and the reason given by the learned Magistrate while accepting the application filed by the respondent under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, is a valid logic; this court does not find any illegality in it.
As far as rejection of the application filed by the petitioners is concerned, the learned Magistrate is certainly justified in noting the fact that the very nature of the case would certainly change. Moreover, if the mesne profit of Rs. 50,000/- is being asked for, the case would go out of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 3.7.2013. This petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay application, too, stands dismissed.