Madhya Pradesh High Court
Firm Ramesh Chandra Naval Kishore vs Ram Bharose Rajput on 6 December, 2021
Author: Satish Kumar Sharma
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. 2326/2021
(Firm Ramesh Chandra Naval Kishore & Anr. Vs.
Ram Bharose Rajput)
Gwalior dated 06.12.2021
Shri B.B. Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri B.D. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
This petition has been filed against the order dated
07/07/2021 passed in case No. 61-A/17 RCSA by 3rd Civil
Judge, Class-2, Gwalior, whereby, application of the
defendants/tenants filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC
has been dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for both the sides and
perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants
submits that plaintiff/Rambarose has filed a civil suit on
the premises that he has purchased rented shop from
Sukhmal Jain i.e. son of the landlord of the defendants.
The said Sukhmal Jain has no title over the rented shop as
the family settlement alleged to have been executed with
regard to joint family property, the sisters have been
excluded. The sale deed executed by Sukhmal Jain in
favour of present landlord does not confer any right or
title over the rented premises. In such a situation, the
defendants filed an application for amendment in their
written statement as they recently came to know the fact
of family settlement and the litigation pending between
family members. The desired amendment is necessary for
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. 2326/2021
proper adjudication of the case. The nature of the suit is
not going to be changed by this amendment. The learned
trial court has mechanically dismissed the application. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants has placed reliance on the
judgment delivered in the case of Ramnath Mahore vs.
Dr Rakesh Kumar Gangil reported in 1985 JLJ 477.
Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has
opposed the petition and submitted that the application
has been filed only to delay the proceedings pending
before the trial court. The learned trial Court has
dismissed the application with reasoned order. The
petition deserves to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and
on perusal of material available on record, it is found that
issues have been framed in the matter and the evidence
has started. At this stage, proviso to order VI Rule 17 of
CPC is relevant for considering the permission sought for
amendment in the pleadings, which is reproduced herein
below :-
"Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure :
17. Amendment of pleadings :-------
Provided that no application for amendment shall
be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the
court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due
diligence, the party could not have raised the matter
before the commencement of trial."
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. 2326/2021
Indisputedly, the landlord has filed a civil suit
against the petitioners/tenants with a clear averments that
he has purchased the disputed shop, meaning thereby, the
petitioners/tenants were aware of the fact of purchase of
the property from Sukhmal Jain from very inception and
accordingly had they remained vigilant, they could have
taken such objection at the time of filing the written
statement, but they have failed to do so, therefore, in view
of amended proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the
proposed amendment cannot be allowed.
It is also evident from the record that on earlier
occasion, the defendants / tenants have already amended
their written statement in relation to the title of the rented
premises which is clearly indicative of the fact that the
defendants are seeking amendment again and again only
to delay the proceedings.
Besides above, the suit is filed for eviction. The
scope of such suit is very limited. The plaintiff/landlord
has to prove the landlord tenant relationship. The
defendants / tenants are at liberty to adduce the evidence
in rebuttal of the evidence of the plaint. In this suit,
dispute of title between the family members is not to be
adjudicated. Hence, the proposed amendment is also not
necessary for adjudication of the controversy between
the parties.
The facts and circumstances of the case cited by the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.P. 2326/2021
defendants/petitioners are quite distinguishable, where
like this case, the defendant had not made prayer to
amend his written statement on earlier two occasion and
the amendment was also found to be necessary in the
peculiar circumstances of that case, therefore, the above
said judgment is not applicable to this case.
In view of above discussion, the learned trial Court
has rightly dismissed the application for amendment.
Resultantly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.
(Satish Kumar Sharma)
Judge
Durgekar*
SANJAY
NAMDEORAO
DURGEKAR
2021.12.07
17:20:49 +05'30'
