DAMODARDAS Vs. RADHAKISHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-2-11
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 27,1952

DAMODARDAS Appellant
VERSUS
RADHAKISHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sharma, J. - (1.)THIS is an application in revision by the plaintiff in a partition suit. A preliminary decree was passed on the 29th April, 1949. Some portion of the outer chowk was kept joint. Against this decree the plaintiff filed an appeal which was partly allowed on the 31st August, 1945 and out of the outer chowk coloured portion was ordered to be partitioned. When the case reached the first court, the Commissioner submitted his report on the 3rd February, 1948 on which objections were filed by the parties. The learned Civil Judge, Jaipur by his order dated the ist July, 1949 directed that portions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the outer chowk be auctioned in a particular manner. None of the parties moved higher courts against this order but the plaintiff filed an application in the first court objecting to the proposed auction. The learned Civil Judge however, by his order dated the 16th November, 1949 rejected the plaintiff's application. Against this order the present revision was filed. Then another revision of the same type was filed by one Radha Kishan defendant. Both the revisions were heard by Mehta, J. and by his order of 24th January, 1951, he rejected Radha Kishan's application for revision. A day before the said order, that is on the 23rd January, 1951 the plaintiff Damodar filed an application for amendment praying that he be allowed to direct his application for revision against the order of the ist July, 1949 also. He also filed a copy of the order dated the ist July, 1949.
(2.)IT has been conceded by Mr. Sanghi appearing on behalf of the applicant that in case his application for amendment is dismissed, the application as originally filed would not stand for the reasons given by Mehta, J. in his order in the application for revision filed by Radha Kishan. He however, strenuously argued that the application for amendment should be allowed. IT was argued by him that the order of the ist July, 1949 was against the provisions of the Partition Act and that this illegality should be cured by allowing the application for amendment and then disposing of the revision. On behalf of the opposite party it has been argued by Messrs. S. N. Saxena appearing on behalf of Gulab Chand and G. C. Kasliwal appearing on behalf of Gopi Chand that it was negligence of the applicant that he did not direct his application for revision against the order of the ist July, 1949 but directed it against the order of the 16th November, 1949 only. IT is discretionary with the Court to allow the application for amendment and when it is found that a party has not cared to act promptly in filing an application for amendment, his request should not be acceded to.
I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel. It is discretionary with the Court to interfere in revision and also to allow an amendment. If a party is negligent for a very long time it is quite open to the court to reject the application for revision as well as the application for amendment on that ground alone. In the present case the order of the learned Civil Judge, was made on the 1st July, 1949 and the applicant did not move his little ringer against that order upto the 23rd January, 1951. Instead he filed an application for revision against the order dated the 16th November, 1949 which could not be interfered with in revision in view of the order of the 1st July, 1949. He did not apply till his application for revision and that of •radha Kishan was heard by Mehta, J. who was of opinion that he was not right in questioning the order of the 16th November, 1949 in revision without challenging the order of the 1st July, 1949. He has not given any reason in his application for amendment why he did not apply for amendment earlier. I do not think that the applicant has been able to make out a case for allowing the application for his amendment. I consequently dismiss the application for amendment. As has been said above the application for revision as it stands has absolutely no force.

The application is dismissed with costs to the contesting opposite party. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.