Skip to content


Dr. Ramavtar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and 18 ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 36 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)494
AppellantDr. Ramavtar Sharma
RespondentState of Rajasthan and 18 ors.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
.....plaintiff in the notice served under section 80 of the code had stated that the promotion of dr. mathur as a reader in medicine furnished him with a cause of action for the suit. the subsequent promotion of dr. mathur as professor was merely consequential to his initial promotion as a reader in medicine. that being so, the amendment thought by the plaintiff was merely consequential. at any rate, the amendment was necessary for determining the real questions in controversy in the suit. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of..........be granted without a fresh notice under section 80 of the code.4. the of vision, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. the order passed by the additional district judge is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff under older 6 rule 17 of the code is allowed, with the direction that the additional district judge shall permit the defendants to make con-sequential amendment of their written statements, if so advised. there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

A.P. Sen, J.

1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff, is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur, dated 8th September, 1973, dismissing his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint.

2. The material facts, in brief, are these. The plaintiff Dr. Ramavtar Sharma brought the suit for declaration of his seniority as a Reader in Medicine over defendants No. 2 to 20 and for grant of perpetual injunction against defendant No. 1. The plaintiff had inter alia challenged the appointment of defendant No. 14 Dr. M.S. Mathur to the post of Reader in Medicine in preference to biro. During the pendency of the suit, the Rajas-than Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules. 1962 were amended w.e.f. 1st March 1969 by insertion of a proviso to Rule 20 by Modification dated 14th March 1973 After the amendment, defendant No. 14 Dr. M.S. Mathur was routed as Medical Superintendent of the Associated Group of Hospitals at Ajmer. The plaintiff, therefore, applied under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for making consequently amendment of the plaint. That application of his has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the promotion of Dr. Mathur as Professor gives rise to a fresh cause of action and in the absence of notice under Section 80 of the Code the amendment cannot be allowed.

3. The revision must be allowed on the short ground that the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the order that he did. The plaintiff in the notice served under Section 80 of the Code had stated that the promotion of Dr. Mathur as a Reader in Medicine furnished him with a cause of action for the suit. The subsequent promotion of Dr. Mathur as Professor was merely consequential to his initial promotion as a Reader in Medicine. That being so, the amendment sought by the plaintiff was merely consequential. At any rate, the amendment was necessary for determine the real questions in controversy in, the suit and the leaned Additional District Judge should have allowed the amendment, without prejudice to the rights of the defendants to make consequential amendment of their written statements, so as to give them the liberty of pleading that no such relief could be granted without a fresh notice under Section 80 of the Code.

4. The of vision, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Additional District Judge is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff under Older 6 Rule 17 of the Code is allowed, with the direction that the Additional District Judge shall permit the defendants to make con-sequential amendment of their written statements, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //