Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 09.11.2005, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the defendant -petitioner's (hereinafter 'the defendant') application filed on 25.05.2005 seeking dismissal of the respondents -plaintiffs' (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') suit for permanent injunction in failing to submit their amended plaint in terms of the order dated 05.01.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge (JD) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur within a period of 14 days. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 09.11.2005, passed by the trial court.
(2.) MR . Prahlad Sharma, appearing for the defendant, submits that the impugned order dated 09.11.2005, passed by the trial court, does not take into reckoning the provisions of order 6 rule 18 CPC. I find no force whatsoever in the case set up by the defendant. The facts of the case are that on a suit for permanent injunction laid by the plaintiffs against the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, the defendant moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in the said suit. The said application was allowed by the trial court on 05.01.2000 and the plaintiffs were thereupon directed to file an amended plaint as also application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC arraying the defendant as a party in the suit. The order dated 05.01.2000 passed by the trial court directing the impleadment of the defendant on his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was put to challenge by the plaintiffs before this Court by way of a revision petition No. 226/2000. This Court vide order dated 27.03.2000 stayed the proceedings before the trial court. The revision petition however came to be dismissed by this Court on 19.08.2003 as not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Cooperative Society Vs. M/s. Swarajya Developers & Ors. (JT 2003 (4) SC 255). The plaintiffs thereupon filed a writ petition No. 570/2004 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 05.01.2000 passed by the trial court. That writ petition was however withdrawn on 20.04.2004. Subsequently the plaintiffs moved an application for clubbing of their suit for permanent injunction with a suit laid by the defendant before the District Judge. The District Judge vide order dated 14.09.2004 directed the clubbing of the aforesaid suit. The plaintiffs thereafter in compliance with the order dated 05.01.2000 passed by the trial court impleaded the defendant as a party to their suit for permanent injunction on 26.08.2005.
(3.) ORDER 6 Rule 18 CPC does not provide for dismissal of a suit on failure of a party in whose favour amendment was allowed by this Court under Order 6 Rule 17 or otherwise by resort to Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In the event of amendment not being carried out within the period provided for by the Court or within 14 days - if time frame is fixed by this Court, the consequence of non -filing of the amended plaint as directed by the court is only that the amendment will not be taken on record unless specifically permitted by the court on an application made. In the instant case the amendment is consequent to the defendant's own application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The defendant cannot in these circumstances be aggrieved of the delay in the amendment of the suit and accompanying application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 as directed by the trial court under its order dated 05.01.2000. Resort to Order 6 Rule 18 CPC misdirected as it is in the context of the defendant's prayer would only entail prejudice to the defendant in preventing the plaintiffs from filing an amended plaint and application as directed on the askance of the defendant. Aside of the aforesaid fact, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 CPC are only directory in nature. Further in the overall facts of the case, I am of the considered view that in the facts of the case the petition at the instance of the defendant seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction is wholly misdirected and without any legal foundation. Consequently, I find no force in the petition. The same is dismissed.;