Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15902 MP
Judgement Date : 1 December, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 5726 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
KIRTI MISHRA S/O LATE INDRAKUMAR MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O JUMERATI MOHALLA,
HOSHANGABAD, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
NARMADAPURAM (HOSHANGABAD) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJAY SHARMA- ADVOCATE)
AND
SUSHRI ATMIKA D/O SHRI SAJJAN DUBEY, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O INFRONT OF MANDI, I.T.I. ROAD,
NEAR SHIVPARWATI HOSHANGABAD, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 29.10.2022 (Annexure P/8) passed in RCS No.89/2019 by the First Civil Judge, Class-2 to the Court of First Additional Judge, Class-II Narmadpuram (M.P.), by which the application preferred by the respondent/defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed.
Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner/plaintiff had
filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 20.02.2016. The defendant/respondent filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations. Earlier the defendant/respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. The trial Court vide order dated 30.04.2022 had rejected the application. The defendant/respondent again filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Reply was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to the aforesaid application. Vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2022, the application has been allowed. Being aggrieved, this petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court did not
consider the fact that the trial has already commenced and the facts to be incorporated were already in the knowledge of the defendant before filing of the written statement, therefore, the application ought to have been rejected. He further submits that the respondent had sought amendment in the written statement since due to inadvertence, some important facts were left out to be mentioned. The learned trial court has allowed the application on the ground that the nature of suit would not be changed and the trial has also not commenced.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Admittedly, in suit the evidence is yet to be recorded. The learned trial Court has also granted liberty to the petitioner to carry out consequential amendment, if so advised. The discretion to deal with the prayer for amendment has been exercised by the trial Court on the sound principles of law.
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 the 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 Shanu
Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.12.02 14:23:26 +05'30'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!