Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohanlal Verma vs Smt. Kasturi Devi on 23 March, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
M.P. No. 314 of 2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SB : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. DHARMADHIKARI
M.P. No. 314 of 2021
Mohanlal Verma
Vs.
Smt. Kasturi Devi and Anr.
Whether reportable :- Yes /No
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Shri Ashish Saraswat, Advocate.
________________________________________________________
ORDER
(Delivered on this Day of 23rd March, 2021)
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
The present petition has been filed against the order dated
15/01/2021 passed in Civil Suit No. 6A/2014 by 1 st Civil Judge,
Class-I, District Morena, whereby, the application filed by the
petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been dismissed.
The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the
respondents/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit seeking vacant possession
of shop and for recovery of rent under section 12(1) (a) & (f) of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The petitioner/defendant has filed
written statement and denied the claim. Thereafter, on the basis of
pleadings, the trial court has framed the issues. The notice dated
01/07/2013 issued by the respondents/plaintiffs which is marked as Ex.
P/10 neither mentioned the date of tenancy nor the date of termination
of tenancy. Accordingly, the petitioner/defendant has filed an
application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC. In
M.P. No. 314 of 2021
the application, it has been specifically stated that the plaintiffs have
sought eviction of the shop under section 12(1) (a) & (f) of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, but in the notice dated 01/07/2013,
neither the date of termination of tenancy nor the mandatory period of
two months time limit with regard to the date of commencement of
termination of tenancy has been mentioned. The trial court has given
the findings that the suit was filed on 11/10/2013, whereas, the written
statement was filed on 12/05/2014 and on perusal of the averments
made in the application as well as in the written statement, the
petitioner had knowledge at the time of filing of the written statement.
The trial had already commenced and the plaintiffs and the defendant
evidence had already been closed. The said amendment is not based on
the subsequent development since this fact is known to the petitioner at
the time of filing of the written statement. Moreover, it appears that
after change of counsel amendment has been sought to be made to
remove the shortcomings in the written statement, which is not
permissible. The reasons for the delay in bringing out the amendment
has also not been explained. Four years time has elapsed after filing of
the written statement, but the amendment has not been carried out. On
these grounds, the trial court rejected the application. Being aggrieved
by the impugned order dated 15/01/2021, the present Misc. Petition is
being filed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
It is an admitted position that there has been considerable delay
on the part of the petitioner in filing the application under Order VI
Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC and there is no explanation for
the delay. The trial has already commenced and the statement of the
witnesses of the plaintiffs as well as defendant are already closed. The
M.P. No. 314 of 2021
discretion to deal with the prayer for amendment has been exercised by
the trial court on the sound principle of law. No prejudice whatsoever
has been caused to the petitioner/defendant, which cannot be
compensated adequately in terms of money. Even otherwise it is
well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution 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 is 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 of this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution.
In view of the preceding analysis, the writ
petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari)
JUDGE
(23/03/2021)
Durgekar*
SANJAY N Digitally signed by SANJAY N DURGEKAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
DURGEKA
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474011,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=148d33096a059f4adb584e1b0b
R
1d3a3616b3e020c6aff92108afad476190
e841, cn=SANJAY N DURGEKAR
Date: 2021.03.23 17:32:28 +05'30'
