SCA/24158/2005 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 24158 of 2005 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 24159 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ASHOKKUMAR SEVAKRAM RANGLANI - Petitioner(s) Versus LAXMANDAS SATRAMDAS - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DR BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR BHAVIK A JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date : 10/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner – original plaintiff has filed Civil Revision Application No.185 of SCA/24158/2005 2/7 JUDGMENT 2001 challenging the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad on 4.7.2000 below an application Ex.112 in Civil Suit No.1413 of 1992 whereby application submitted on behalf of the respondent for amendment of the Written Statement and amendment to the reply to the application Ex.5 has been allowed. 2. Similarly the petitioner – original plaintiff has initially filed Civil Revision Application No.186 of 2001 under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge below an application Ex.100-A whereby the application moved by the petitioner praying for the relief that the order passed below Ex.53 directing the respondent to remove his cabin as per prayer 8(a), which order was challenged before this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court and confirmed by both the Courts and despite that since the cabin was SCA/24158/2005 3/7 JUDGMENT not removed, the prayer made for removal of cabin through Court Commissioner, was not granted. 3. As far as first application Ex.112 is concerned, the learned City Civil Judge has rejected the said application on the ground that it is the matter of evidence where both the parties are required to be given adequate opportunity to prove their case and, therefore, if the amendment as prayed for is allowed and granted then the same would help or facilitate the Court in resolving the real issue involved in the suit and, therefore, the prayer set out in the application for grant of the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was granted. 4. This order was under challenge in Civil Revision Application No.185 of 2001. 5. Similarly application Ex.100-A preferred by SCA/24158/2005 4/7 JUDGMENT the petitioner was rejected by the learned City Civil Judge on the ground that the notice of motion Ex.53 was disposed of by the Court and the same was confirmed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, learned City Civil Judge has observed that the petitioner – original plaintiff ought to have filed detailed application narrating the circumstances under which he was seeking relief to remove cabin of the respondent instead of filing purshis for seeking another prayer in the notice of motion which has already been disposed of by this Court vide Ex.53. This order of the learned City Civil Judge is under challenge in Civil Revision Application No.186 of 2001. 6. Both these Civil Revision Applications were admitted and, thereafter, they were converted into Special Civil Application Nos.24158 and 24159 of 2005 respectively by an order dated SCA/24158/2005 5/7 JUDGMENT 15.12.2005. 7. Heard Mr.D.R.Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in both the matters and perused the impugned order as well as the memo of petitions. The Court is in conformity with the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in applications Ex.112 and 100-A in Civil Suit No.1413 of 1992. While granting amendment in the Written Statement and the reply to the application Ex.5 the learned City Civil Judge has rightly observed that if the amendment as prayed for is allowed and granted then the same would help or facilitate the Court in resolving the real issue involved in the suit. This finding of learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad cannot be said to be a finding contrary to the provisions of law or in any case it cannot be said that the learned City Civil Judge has committed any grave error of law or facts or he has SCA/24158/2005 6/7 JUDGMENT exceeded his jurisdiction while granting such amendment. No interference is, therefore, called for in the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad. It is, however, made clear that simply because the amendment is granted it does not mean that what is stated in such amendment is true and correct. During the course of trial the contents of the amendment would certainly be looked into by the learned trial Judge and the suit be decided after complete examination of evidence and documents on record. 8. So far as Special Civil Application No.24159 of 2005 is concerned, once the notice of motion is disposed of there is no question of filing any purshis in the disposed notice of motion and to make any new prayer. For that purpose, the petitioner – original plaintiff is required to take out a fresh notice of motion and the same will be decided on its own merits. If while deciding the earlier SCA/24158/2005 7/7 JUDGMENT notice of motion the cabin is ordered to be removed and this is confirmed by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and still the said order is not complied with by the other side the remedy lies somewhere else. The learned City Civil Judge has, therefore, rightly observed that simply by filing purshis a new prayer cannot be made in the disposed notice of motion. No interference is, therefore, called for in the said order of the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad. 9. Subject to the aforesaid discussion and observations both these petitions are disposed off and rule discharged without any order as to costs. (K. A. PUJ, J.) kks