IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2009
With
W.P. (C) No. 252 of 2009
Manoj Kumar Jain @
Manoj Jain & another ... Petitioners (In W.P. (C) No. 249 of 2009)
Veena Jain ... Petitioner (In W.P. (C) No. 252 of 2009)
Versus
Rajan Prasad & others ... Respondents (In both cases)
.............
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
------------
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. R.N Sahay &
Mr. Rajesh Lala (In both cases)
For the Respondents Mr. Rajan Raj (In both cases)
-----------
x/ Dated: 21st of April, 2009
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to join,
left out original plaintiffs as respondents in both the petitions.
2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.
3. Counsel for the respondents, waives notice on behalf of
newly added respondents.
4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:
(i) the present petitioners in both the aforesaid petitions are the
original defendants in Title (Eviction) Suit Nos. 59 as well as 61 of
2006;
(ii) the respondents are the original plaintiffs, who have
instituted the Title (Eviction) Suit on the ground of personal
necessity as the owner of the suit property was having two sons
and they want to carry out expansion of their business activities;
(iii) it also appears from the fact of the case that at later stage,
after filing of the written statement, the present petitioners (original
defendants) came to know about the purchase of the property by
the original plaintiffs and, therefore, an application was preferred
under Order-VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
amendment of a written statement. This application is at
Annexure-1 to the memo of the present petition. Looking to the
para-2 of the said application, it appears that allegations have been
levelled by the petitioners (original defendants) that the plaintiffs
2.
have acquired a sufficiently large property and they are not going
to expand their business activities in the suit premises;
(iv) it appears that after the knowledge of purchase of property
by the original plaintiffs, the petitioners (original defendants) in
November, 2008, immediately preferred an application for
amendment in written statement, but, at the same time the
evidence was already over in both the suits. Nonetheless, looking
to the application preferred by the present petitioners under Order-
VI, Rule-17 of C.P.C., the knowledge of the present petitioners start
from November, 2008 also looking to the contention as stated in
para-2 onwards in their application under Order-VI, Rule-17 of
C.P.C., the amendment affects the very root of the suits. The
amendment will also facilitate the trial Court in arriving at the
correct decision of the dispute between the parties, therefore, also
amendment require to be allowed in written statement in both the
suits.
(v) it also appears from the facts of the case as per contentions
raised by the counsel for the respondents in the present petitions,
no doubt they have acquired property as stated in para-2, in an
application preferred by the present petitioners under Order-VI,
Rule-17 of C.P.C. but, it is not true that they are not going to
expand their business activities on the suit property. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the
petitioners have tried to delay the disposal of the suits and,
therefore, a time bound schedule should be given to the trial Court
so that no unnecessary adjournment may be given. Learned
counsel for the petitioners have also assured this Court that they
shall not ask for unnecessary adjournment and will be abide by
whatsoever time may be given to trial Court for disposal of suits
and they shall co-operate with the hearing and early disposal of
both the suits.
5. In view of these submissions and looking to the nature of
application under Order-6, Rule-17 preferred by present petitioners
and looking to the nature of controversy between the parties, I
hereby allow these applications, preferred by the present
petitioners in Title (Eviction) Suit Nos. 59 and 61 of 2006, preferred
under Order-VI, Rule-17 of C.P.C. as the amendment affects the
3.
very root of the case. No prejudice is going to cause to original
plaintiffs. So far as, appointment of the commissioner under Order
XXVI, Rule 9 of C.P.C. is concerned, as the counsel for respondents
have fairly admitted purchase of another property which is
stockyard type property as stated in para-2 in an application,
preferred by the petitioners under Order-VI, Rule-17 and they are
not loading cars, coming from outside and the said property is
situated on the highway and outside the city of Dhanbad, learned
counsel for the petitioners is not pressing these applications,
preferred under Order-XXXVI, Rule-9 of C.P.C. at this stage.
6. I hereby allow the applications under Order-VI, Rule-17 in
both the suits and I hereby direct trial Court to decide the Title
(Eviction) Suit Nos. 59 as well as 61 of 2006, as expeditiously as
possible and practicable, but not later than 60 days from the receipt
of copy of the order of this Court.
7. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners (original
defendants) that they want to examine only one witness for proof
of the usage of the newly purchase property; otherwise they are not
going to examine any other witness. Learned counsel for the
respondents (original plaintiffs) has also submitted that they do not
want to examine any witness nonetheless, I hereby allow both the
parties to adduce evidence. Thus, applications preferred by the
original defendants under Order-6, Rule-17 of C.P.C. in both the
suits are allowed. So far as applications under Order-XXVI, Rule 9
of C.P.C. is concerned; the petitioners (original defendants) are not
pressing these applications at this stage. Thus, the orders passed
by the trial Court to the aforesaid extent is quashed and set aside.
8. Both the petitions are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent,
with no order as to costs.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Ajay/