// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6816/2008 Suraji Devi D/o late Shri Kripa Ram Versus Fateh Singh S/o Shri Maru Ram and Another Date of Order ::: 19.08.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Mahendra Singh Gurjar, Counsel for petitioner Shri Des Raj Kalwania, Counsel for respondent No.1 #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri Des Raj Kalwania, Advocate, appears for the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 is only a Proforma party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of adoption-deed dated 17th July, 1975 executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the defendant. The suit was filed on 4th January, 2005. The written-statement was filed on 26th May, 2005. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment in the plaint on 21st April, 2008 wherein it was prayed that the defendant has // 2 // denied a fact that the plaintiff is natural daughter of late Shri Kripa Ram, therefore, it has become necessary to get a declaration to the effect that she is the only natural daughter of late Shri Kripa Ram, therefore, the plaintiff be allowed to add Para 9A and 10A in the plaint. The trial court dismissed the application vide order dated 27th May, 2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is not seeking any amendment in the plaint but he wants to add only one prayer regarding declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is natural daughter of late Shri Kripa Ram and the trial court committed an illegality in dismissing the application. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court. The present suit for cancellation of adoption-deed dated 17th July, 1975 executed by Kripa Ram in favour of defendant Fateh Singh was filed in the trial court on 4th January, 2005. The trial court framed nine issues on 22nd // 3 // May, 2007. The issue No.1 is as to whether the plaintiff is daughter of late Shri Kripa Ram and she was born out of the wedlock of Kripa Ram and his wife Smt. Mahadi. The trial court rejected the application observing that in the Suit No.16/2000 titled as Surji Vs. Fateh Singh, a written-statement was filed way-back on 3rd May, 2002 whereas the cause of action for amendment in the application has been mentioned to have arisen on 26th May, 2005. The trial court has observed that the cause of action for the present relief for declaration accrued to the plaintiff on 3rd May, 2002 when the written- statement was filed in the Revenue Court and according to the Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation is only three years, therefore, in case the amendment sought is allowed in the plaint then the present suit will come within a period of limitation. The plaintiff has already adduced four witnesses and the present application has been filed with inordinate delay. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be correct that he wants to add only one prayer in the plaint. A copy of the application for amendment sought has been placed on the record as Annexure-7, wherein the plaintiff wants to add Para 9A and // 4 // 10A in the plaint. There is no prayer for adding these Para in the prayer clause of the plaint. The order passed by the learned trial court appears to be perfectly justified. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//