Sitaram Parihar vs Tunderam
2021 Latest Caselaw 3811 MP

           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                    BENCH AT GWALIOR
                         MP No. 243/2017
          ( Sitaram Parihar Vs Tunderam & another)
                                  (1)

Heard through video conferencing.
Gwalior, dated :31/07/2021
        Shri G.S. Sharma and Shri S.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
       No one appears for the respondent, even though served.

IA No. 2306/2021, an application for urgent hearing, is allowed.

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioner has assailed the legality, valididty and propriety of the

order dated 31/08/2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class II,

Gohad District Bhind (M.P.) whereby application preferred by the

petitioner/defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, has been

dismissed.

Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that

respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for possession and arrears of

rent inter alia pleading that petitioner/defendant is residing as a

tenant in the house of their ownership since 01/04/2011 at the rate of

Rs. 1000/- per month. It is alleged in the plaint that

petitioner/defendant has paid the rent of the premises in question

from 01/04/2011 to November, 2014 and no rent has been paid from

01/01/2015 till date. It is also pleaded that neither the rent is being

paid nor accommodation is being vacated despite the notice. Hence,

the suit has been filed.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertent

mistake in the written statement due to oversight of the counsel, an

application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been filed by the

petitioner/defendant on 08/04/2017 seeking amendment in the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MP No. 243/2017 ( Sitaram Parihar Vs Tunderam & another)

written statement by adding the word "Nahin" after the word

"Sweekar". Similiarly in the last line of first para, petitioner wants to

add word "Nahin" after word "Tuderam". Likewise, in paragraph 2

after words "Kramank 2" defendant wants to add " Yah Galat Hai

Ki" and in last of paragraph 2, he wants to add "Pad Kramank 2

Galat Hone Se Sweekar Nahin Hai". In 21st line of 3rd paragraph of

the written statement, after the word "Anubandh Ke Aadhar Par",

petitioner wants to add words "Bataur Swami". In the last of

Paragraph 5 petitioner/defendant wants to add words "Vaadigan

Evam Prativadi Ke Madhya Bhu-Swami Evam Abhidhari Ke

Sambandh Nai Hai Aur Na Kabi Rahe Hai. Isliye Vaadi Ka Dava

M.Pra. Sthan Niyantran Vidhan 1961 Ke Pravdhan Laagu Na Hone

Se Dava Prachlan Yogya Na Hone Se Nirast Kiya Jaane Yogya Hai".

On the other hand, the respondents had filed the reply to the

application wherein specific plea has been raised that if the

application is allowed, it would change nature of the suit.

Accordingly, prayed for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 31/08/2017

rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that in

the written statement the facts which have alrady been admitted can

not be denied at the subsequent stage by way of amendment. Nature

of the suit would change, in case application is allowed and

accordingly, rejected the application.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR MP No. 243/2017 ( Sitaram Parihar Vs Tunderam & another)

The Trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that in case

amendment is allowed it would change nature of suit. The present

amendment is not ellaboration of pleadings in the written statement

but the same is for denial of the averment which had already been

admitted earlier. The learned Trial Court has passed the order in

accordance with law. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, can not be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a

court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the

orders are passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of

fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: Jai Singh and

others vs. M.C.D. and others (2010) 9 SCC 385 and Shalini

Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329].

In the instant case, the impugned order is not passed in

violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting

interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In

view of the preceding analysis, the writ petition fails and is hereby

dismissed.

The interim order granted by this Court on earlier occasion

shall stand vacated.

The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Prachi* PRACHI MISHRA 2021.08.03 21:12:59 +05'30'