Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP/3693/2023 of AJAY Vs SHRIMANT MAHARANI USHADEVI OF INDORE DWARA SACHIV on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 3693 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
AJAY S/O SHRI BENIPRASADJI VERMA, AGED ABOUT 64YE A R S , OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 122 PALSIKARCOLONY DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI NIPUN CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.SHRIMANT MAHARANI USHADEVI OF INDOREDWARA SACHIV THIKANA MANIKBAG DISTRICTINDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)DWARA SACHIV THIKANA MANIKBAG DISTRICTINDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.MADHYA PRADESH SASAN DWARA JILADISHINDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( RESPONDENT NO.4 BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - PANEL LAWYER. NONEFOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THOUGH SERVED)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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.
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner against the order dated 21.06.2023 passed inCivil Suit No.900009/2014 by the 7th District Judge, District Indore, whereby anapplication under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint andunder Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading one Subhash as a defendantto the suit has been rejected.
2. In the aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff he had categoricallymade an averment to the effect that he has obtained the copies of the KhasraPanchshala with respect to the suit land from the office of the Tehsildar uponwhich he has acquired knowledge that the same is recorded in the name of one Subhash. Certain other entries were also found by him to be made therein.Since Subhash is recorded over the said land he is a necessary party to the suitand it is imperative for the plaintiff to make necessary amendments in the plaintin that regard.
3. Application preferred by the plaintiff has primarily been rejected bythe trial Court on the ground of delay and on the ground that no document hasbeen produced by plaintiff in support of the averments made by him in theapplication.
4. A perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court shows that theevidence of plaintiff has not yet begun and the case has now been fixed forrecording of his evidence. Thus mere pendency of the suit since the year 2008would not be material. The claim is of plaintiff and there is no reason for him todelay the proceedings of his own case. In any case for the delay in making theapplication the defendants could have been compensated by cost.
5. The observation of the trial Court that documents have not beenfiled by plaintiff in support of his applications is misconceived as that would bea matter of evidence and at the stage of consideration of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC it is only the averments which are required to beconsidered and it has to be further considered whether they are necessary for ajust and proper decision of the dispute raised between the parties.
6. From a perusal of the application filed by the plaintiff it appears thatthe proposed amendments are necessary for a complete adjudication of thedispute between the parties. Since one Subhash is recorded over the suit land,for an effective decree to be passed his impleadment is necessary. Under Order1 Rule 10 of the CPC a necessary party can be impleaded at any time even in anappeal thus rejection of the said application on the ground of delay iserroneous.
7. As a result the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot besustained and is hereby set aside. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 of theCPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC filed by plaintiff stands allowedsubject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- by the plaintiff to the defendantsbefore the trial Court on the next date of hearing.
8. Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
ns
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE