Mahavir Chand Chajed vs Gopal Daga
2021 Latest Caselaw 1790 Chatt

                                                                             NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         W.P.(227) No.176 of 2020

      Mahavir Chand Chajed S/o Late Shri Mangilal Chajed, Aged About 48
       Years By Caste Jain, By Occupation Business, R/o Bharkapara,
       Rajnandgaon,     Post       Mukam   Rajnandgaon,    Tahsil    And    District
       Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

                                                                    ---- Petitioners
                                       Versus


   1. Gopal Daga S/o Late Shri Agyaram Daga, Aged About 58 Years By
       Caste Maheshwari, By Occupation Business, R/o Ramdhin Marg,
       Rajnandgaon Post And Mukam Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon
       Chhattisgarh
   2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Office, Tahsil And
       District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Respondents

For Petitioner                 :     Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.

For respondent No.1            :     Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.

For State/respondent No.2      :     Mr. Sameer Oraon, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board

16/08/2021

1. This petition has been brought seeking indulgence of this Court under

Article 227 Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order

dated 01.02.2020 passed by the Court of District Judge, Rajnandgaon in

Civil Suit No.25A/2012 by which the application of the petitioner/plaintiff

praying for amendment in the plaint has been rejected.

2. The petitioner has filed Civil Suit praying for relief of specific

performance of contract and other reliefs. During the pendency of the

Civil Suit, petitioner filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.

read with Section 155 of C.P.C. praying for amendment in the relief

clause. The learned trial Court has rejected this application vide

impugned order holding that the application filed is delayed and

secondly, the reliefs are sought against the defendant No.2/State which

is a formal party.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

impugned order is erroneous and against the provisions of law, the

amendment proposed did not change the nature of the suit and the

amendment sought was necessary for the complete decision in the case

concerned.

4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court passed in the

case of Yoshodabai through L.Rs. Vs. Umashanker Gupta & Ors.

reported in 2020 (3) CGLJ 497 and the judgment of Supreme Court in

the case of Vijay Hathising Shah & Anr. Vs. Gitaben Prashottamdas

Mukhi & Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 360, prayer has been made for

grant of relief.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and

submissions made and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly

rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., as the trial in

Civil Suit is nearing completion and is at the stage of recording of

defense evidence. The proposed amendment may change the nature of

the suit filed by the petitioner.

6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Vijay

Hathising Shah & Anr. (Supra), in which the rejection order under Order

6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was affirmed on the ground that it was delayed and the

hearing in the Civil Suit was at the final stage and also the amendment proposed was not necessary. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

present on record.

8. In the amendment proposed, firstly the petitioner has sought relief of

direction to the respondent/defendant No.02 to make mutation.

Secondly directing the respondent No.01 to provide documents for

registration of sale deed for specific performance of decree.

9. After considering on the submissions made by the learned counsel and

looking to the amendment that is proposed by the petitioner side in the

plaint, it is found that the reliefs that are sought by the proposed

amendment against respondent No.02 are in fact regarding

consequences of the decree, if it is passed in favour of the petitioner

and usually in a case of specific performance of contract, if it is followed

by a decree in favour of the plaintiff. In that case, the registration of sale

deed and mutation are consequences, regarding which there is no

specific requirement for grant of relief in that respect. Respondent

No.2/State cannot be directed to facilitate the execution of decree, as it

will be the burden of the plaintiff or the respondent No.1 to do their part,

therefore, I am of this view that the amendment proposed by the

petitioner in the plaint is unnecessary and without the same there shall

be no impediment for the decision of Civil Suit between the parties.

Hence, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned

order. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Monika