Skip to content


Smt. Kamla Vs. Samast Panch Visha Hummad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil 2nd Appeal No. 298 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)40
AppellantSmt. Kamla
RespondentSamast Panch Visha Hummad
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act, 1950 - application of, and civil procedure code - order 6, rule 17 amendment of grounds in ejectment suit--rent control became applicable to a place where premises situated--held, it is in interests of justice to allow amendment of grounds taken in plaint;it would be in the interests of justice if the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint for taking the grounds as would now be required under the rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act which has become applicable to the area where the suit property is situated and then proceed with the case afresh in the trial court.;appeal accepted - .....become applicable to the area where the suit property is situated and then proceed with the case afresh in the trial court. this request appears to be reasonable and just and in view of the facts and circumstances it would be in the interest of justice to allow it.2. consequently it is not necessary to give in detail the facts of the case and the submissions made by mr. singhvi and the reply of mr. gupta.3. all that is required to be mentioned is that both the learned counsel agree that the appeal should be accepted and the judgment of both the courts below be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial court for fresh decision after permission for amendment of the plaint and further proceedings by filing written statement framing of fresh issues, permitting both the parties to.....
Judgment:

G.M. Lodha, J.

1. Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it would be in the in interest of justice if the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint for taking the grounds as would now be required under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act which has become applicable to the area where the suit property is situated and then proceed with the case afresh in the trial court. This request appears to be reasonable and just and in view of the facts and circumstances it would be in the interest of justice to allow it.

2. Consequently it is not necessary to give in detail the facts of the case and the submissions made by Mr. Singhvi and the reply of Mr. Gupta.

3. All that is required to be mentioned is that both the learned counsel agree that the appeal should be accepted and the judgment of both the courts below be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial court for fresh decision after permission for amendment of the plaint and further proceedings by filing written statement framing of fresh issues, permitting both the parties to lead evidence and then decide the case according to law.

4. It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment and decree of both the lower courts are set aside and the appeal is accepted. The trial court would now permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and then proceed with the suit afresh.

5. The parties would bear their own costs through out.


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