http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3250 of 2008

PETITIONER: MANOJ KUMAR  

RESPONDENT: KISHAN LAL (D) THROUGH L.RS. AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 113/2007] 1.      Leave granted. 2.      This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2006 passed by a  Division Bench of the Hight Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Second  Appeal (Writ) NO. 627/2006, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the  appellant against the order of the Trial Judge rejecting an application for  amendment, was dismissed.          3.      The appellant filed a suit 6.3.2000, for seeking a permanent and mandatory  injunction against the respondents in respect of the plot of land situated at Amet in  Rajasmand, restraining the respondents - defendants from raising any construction  on the souther side of the said plot.  This land is said to have been purchased by the  appellant, which allegedly was left to be open for use and thoroughfare.  

4.      The suit was filed on 6.3.2000. The defendants filed the written statement on or  about 17.5.2001.  An application for amendment of the plaint was filed purported to  be in terms of the Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), in terms  whereof three long paragraphs were sought to be added after paragraph 3. In the said  application for amendment, the appellant sought to make out absolutely a different  case that the parties herein entered into an agreement, pursuant whereto the  defendants agreed not to raise any construction towards the south side of the land in  question. The said application for amendment was rejected by the learned Trial Judge  by his order dated 10.10.2002.   

5.      A revision application filed by the appellant thereagaisnt was disposed of giving  liberty to the appellant to file a review application. Thereafter, a review application  was filed on 27.11.2002  which was rejected by an order dated 2.6.2006. A writ petition  filed thereagainst has been dismissed.  

6.      Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the  application for amendment was filed only with a view to supplement the original case  filed by the plaintiff and no new case has been made out. Learned counsel would  contend that it is now well settled that the Courts should be liberal while dealing with  application for amendment of the plaint.   

7.      We have been taken through the judgment of the learned Trial Judge dated  10.10.2002.  The learned Trial Judge has considered the question at some length.  It  was pointed out that the amendment sought for by the appellant intended to make out  a case which was somewhat inconsistent with his earlier case.  From a perusal of the  order dated 13.11.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, it  appears that the correctness of the said order was not questioned and the revision  petition was withdrawn stating that a review application was filed.  

8.      Once the said revision application was withdrawn, the order of the learned Trial  Judge attained finality.  It is difficult to comprehend as to how the order of the  learned Trial Judge could have been the subject matter of a review.  It was rightly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

dismissed by the learned Trial Judge in terms of his order dated 2.6.2006.

9.      The High Court, therefore, was, in our opinion, entirely correct in passing the  impugned judgment.  We have noticed hereinbefore that the contention of Mr.  Shishodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, was in relation to the  original order passed by the learned Trial Judge.  As the said order has attained  finality, the only question which arose for consideration of the High Court was as to  whether the review has rightly been rejected or not.  There cannot be any doubt  whatsoever that no case was made out for review of the said order.   

10.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the  learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously  as possible, preferably  within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.  The  parties shall render all cooperation to the Trial Court for early disposal of the suit.   

11.     The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned direction.