1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6807/2008 Jivraj Sharma & Others Versus Ghisa S/o Dhanna & Others Date of Order :: 11th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sudesh Bansal) for the petitioners with ) Mr. Vipul Jain ) Mr. Amit Jindal ) for the respondents with ) Mr. Rajesh Ruhla ) BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Amit Jindal, advocate appears for contesting respondents no. 1 and 2. The other respondents are only formal or proforma parties, therefore, their service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction in respect of disputed property in the trial court, wherein the defendants filed their written statement. The rejoinder was also filed. Before issues could be framed in the case, the plaintiffs filed an application on 24.5.2008 under Order 6 Rule 17 2 CPC for amendment in the plaint, whereby plaintiffs wanted to incorporate three paras as para 6 Ka, “Kha” and “Ga” after para 6. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that plaintiffs want to fulfill the lacunae left by them in their plaint, therefore, the same cannot be allowed and consequently rejected the application vide order dated 3rd July, 2008 which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the amendment sought in the plaint was only explanatory in nature of their case and it was not going to change the nature of the suit. He also contended that provisions relating to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are procedural in nature and the same should be construed liberally. The trial court without considering all these aspects of the case wrongly rejected the application. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents fairly and frankly conceded that so far as para no. (i) i.e. 6 Ka is concerned, he has no objection in case the same is allowed to be incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment in the plaint, but he has objection 3 in respect of para “Kha” and “Ga”. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after considering the same, I find that amendment sought in the plaint vide para 6 Ka is only material and relevant and the same is in the nature of explanation of case of the plaintiffs, which has wrongly been denied by the trial court to be incorporated in the main suit. So far as other remaining two paras 6 Kha and 6 Ga are concerned, the same are not required to be incorporated as the same are not relevant and they may change the nature of the suit also. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 3rd July, 2008 passed by the trial court is set- aside. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 24th May 2008 is partly allowed. Para 6 Ka, as mentioned in the application, is allowed to be incorporated in the main suit. So far as prayer for amendment by incorporating para 6 Kha and 6 Ga is concerned, the same is rejected. The plaintiffs may now file the amended suit, as directed above, in the trial court. 8. So far as this writ petition is 4 concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK