1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Gopal & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Das & Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11791/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: August 25, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.J.P. Goyal, for the petitioners. BY THE COURT: The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.1, Dholpur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 12.07.1978, the then Chairman of the Managing Committee of Shri Satya Narain Dharamshala Trust, Bari, Mr. Gopal Das had filed a suit for eviction against the defendant, Kanhaiya Lal, on the ground of default, sub-letting etc. During the course of trial, Mr. Kanhaiya Lal expired. Therefore, Bhagwan Das was substituted in his place. The defendant filed his written statement and denied 2 the title of the landlord. On 05.02.1986, the defendant sought an amendment in the written statement. According to the defendant, Mr. Gopal Das had no authority to file the suit on behalf of the Trust. Vide order dated 04.08.1987, the said application for amending the written statement was allowed. Subsequently, on 21.02.1990, the defendant filed the amended written statement. On 22.07.1994, the learned trial court framed issues. Issue No.6 related to whether Mr. Gopal Das was competent to file suit or not against the defendant? Vide judgment & decree dated 14.12.1998, the learned trial court dismissed the suit wherein it was held that Mr. Gopal Das did not have the authority to file the suit on behalf of the Trust. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Mr. Gopal Das filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.1, Dholpur. The said appeal is still pending before the learned Judge. On 05.02.2010, Mr. Gopal Das was substituted by the newly elected Chairman of Trust namely Mr. Harish Chandra Bansal. During the pendency of the appeal, on 05.03.2010 Mr. Harish Chandra Bansal filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint. According to the application, the Trust was of the opinion that Mr. Gopal Das had not pursued the case in earnest. The Trust wanted to establish the fact that Mr. Gopal Das was duly elected as the Chairman of the 3 Trust. Hence, he was competent to file the suit on behalf of the Trust. The respondent filed the reply to the said application. Vide order dated 15.07.2010, the learned Judge has dismissed the application for amending the plaint. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. J.P. Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that during the trial of the suit, the trustees were unaware of the fact that Mr. Gopal Das, who was the Chairman of the Trust, was not pursuing the case with due diligence. Although the defendant had raised an objection with regard to the locus standi of Mr. Gopal Das to file the suit on behalf of the Trust, although sufficient opportunities were given to the Trust to place the record of the Trust in order to make out a case that Mr. Gopal Das was, indeed, an elected Chairman, yet Mr. Gopal Das failed to do so. Since the relevant record was unavailable, the learned trial court had dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit had been filed by a person who was not authorised to do so. In order to prove the fact that Mr. Gopal Das was, indeed, the Chairman at the relevant time, the petitioner had sought the relevant amendment in the plaint. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that merely by amending the plaint, no 4 hardship would be caused to the defendant and it would not change the nature of the suit which was filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting the application. Considering the fact that initially there were merely three trustees, considering the fact that Mr. Gopal Das claimed to be the Chairman of the Trust, it is highly unlikely that the other two trustees would not have followed the course of the litigation. Even if other trustees were subsequently brought into the Trust, they cannot possibly claim that over a long period of time, from 1978 till 22.07.1994 i.e. almost for a period of one and half decade, the trustees did not know the status and the nature of the litigation pending against the Trust. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in rejecting the application for amending the plaint. Moreover, he has given other cogent reasons for doing the same. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki