- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 Intejamiya Committee, Masjid Nawab Usman Khan is represented through Mr. Usman Khan and the respondent No.2, the court of Estate Officer, Wakf Rajasthan Jaipur is proforma party therefore service thereon be dispensed with. The prayer sought for is allowed. The service of respondent No.2 is dispensed with. Service is hence complete. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 15-2-2013, whereby the Court of the Estate Officer, Wakf has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner (non-applicant in the eviction petition) for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition filed by the respondent applicant (hereinafter 'the applicant') under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1964 (hereinafter 'the 1964 Act'). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-non applicant (hereinafter 'non applicant') as also the learned counsel for the applicant Intejamiya Committee, Masjid Nawab Usman Khan and perused the impugned order dated 15-2-2013 passed by the Estate Officer, Wakf, Jaipur. In my considered opinion, the impugned order dated 15-2-2013 does not suffer from any perversity or misdirection in law. It is an admitted fact that the application for eviction of the non-applicant, stated to be an unauthorised occupant of wakf property (public premises) under the 1964 Act was filed on 12-3-2009. Reply thereto was filed by the petitioner on 28-5-2009. Subsequently, after a delay of about three years, in what the Act of 1964 requires to be summary proceedings, on 24-12-2012, an application for amendment of the reply was filed before the court of Estate Officer, Wakf. The learned Estate Officer on consideration of the application held that the application seeking amendment of the reply was unsustainable, inasmuch as the amendment which was sought, pertained to facts in existence prior to filing of the reply on 28-5-2009. It has been further held that the legal issue which was sought to be agitated by the petitioner-non-applicant, would be considered by the Estate Officer, if relevant to the defence of the non-applicant, at the time of the adjudication of the proceedings under the Act of 1964.
(3.) IN my considered view, in the context of amendments sought there was no occasion for the Estate Officer, Wakf to allow the application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition moved after three years of the filing of the reply. The proceedings under the Act of 1964 are summary proceedings. Casual amendment of pleadings without just and satisfactory grounds would entail unacceptable delay in adjudication under the Act of 1964 and make a mockery of legislative intent. The trial court has held that the facts on which amendments were sought were in existence before the filing of the reply to the eviction petition and the purported legal grounds sought to be incorporated by way of amendment could even otherwise be agitated. In my considered opinion the reasoning of the Estate Officer in rejecting the prayer of amendment is neither perverse nor suffers from any misdirection in law. The delayed application for amendment which also sought to rely on a circular of 2010 relating to wakf property was to my mind quite irrelevant to the grounds on which the eviction petition was filed in 2009. Other amendments belatedly sought related to events in existence prior to filing of the reply in 2009. The non-applicant thus was not duly diligent and deserved no discretion in being exercised in his favour. I therefore find no force in this petition and would dismiss it concurring with the Estate Officer Wakf Board. Dismissed.;