Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP/1886/2017 of ASHOK OJHA Vs SURESHCHANDRA on 28 December 2017
MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.P. No.1886/2017 (Ashok Ojha V/s.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Indore, Dated : 28.12.2017
Shri Deepak Tiwari, learned counsel for thepetitioner.
Heard on IA No.18702/2017, an application forurgent hearing during vacation and IA No.18705/2017,an application for urgent hearing.
Considering the averments made in theseapplications, both IAs (IA No.18702/2017 & IANo.18705/2017) are allowed. The case is taken upduring vacation.
Heard on the question of admission.
Petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petitionbeing aggrieved by order dated 19.12.2017 passed inCivil Suit No.3-A/2013 by the District Judge Alirajpurby which application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 readwith Section 151 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
The plaintiff initially filed the suit againstrespondents No.1 to 5 seeking relief of declaration,partition and possession. On 04.03.2009, the defendantNo.4 & 5 filed the written statement on 17.06.2009. Thedefendant No.1 & 2 filed the written statement on21.08.2009.
Vide order dated 15.07.2011 the Trial Court framed the issue for adjudication. The defendant No.6being a tenant was impleaded as defendant No.6 in thesuit, thereafter he filed the written and on the basis ofpleading in the written statement additional issues wereframed on 30.06.2016. The plaintiff examined himselfand his witnesses on 19.08.2016, thereafter thedefendants have also closed their evidence and the finalargument took place on 21.12.2017.
Vide order dated 04.08.2016 the defendant No.6has been proceeded ex-parte, thereafter he filed anapplication under Order 9 Rule 7 on 13.12.2017 alongwith an application under Order 13 Rule 4 of CPC andanother application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Inthe said application the defendant No.6 has disclosedthat the defendant No.1 & 2 have executed registereddeed dated 18.07.1977 by which they have relinquishedtheir rights in the suit property and the said deed wasmortgaged with the defendant No.6 by Kanhaiyalal inRs.10,000/-. On disclosure of this fact the plaintiff filedan application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seekingamendment in the plaint. The said application was filedon 19.12.2017. The learned Trial Court has consideredall the applications together and rejected all the applications with cost. The present petitioner has filedthe present petition being aggrieved by rejection of hisapplication filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitionerShri Deepak Tiwari.
Shri Tiwari submits that the proposedamendment is necessary for adjudication of the disputeand, therefore, in the interest of justice same is liable tobe allowed. The proposed amendment would notchange the nature of the suit. In support of hiscontention he placed reliance over the judgment ofApex Court passed in Abdul Rehman and anotherV/s. Mohd. Ruldu and othersreported in (2012) 11SCC 341, Surendra Kumar Sharma V/s. MakhanSinghreported in (2009) 10 SCC 626 and M/s.Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. V/s. ManoharLalreported in LAWS (SC) 2017 277.
The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in the year2009 for seeking partition and possession. Thedefendant filed the written statement in the year 2009and the issues have been framed long back. Theevidence of the defendants and plaintiffs have beenconcluded. The final argument in suit has already taken
place and now the case is fixed for judgment. At thisbelated stage plaintiffs filed an application foramendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The TrialCourt has observed that there is a collusion between theplaintiff and the defendant No.6 and the application hasbeen filed for the purpose of delaying the trial. Theproposed amendment is not based on subsequentevents.
The defendant No.6 is only a tenant in the suitpremises. He is not related with the plaintiffs anddefendants No.1 to 5. The eviction suit has already beenfiled against him. It appears that he is supporting theplaintiff, therefore, at this stage the application foramendment cannot be allowed, when the Trial Courthas already heard the final arguments. The petition isdismissed, however, the plaintiff is having liberty tofile these documents in the First Appeal, if occasion soarises.
C.c. as per rules.
ns
(Vivek Rusia)
Vacation Judge