Chandrakala @ Bakubai vs Sunita Mathankar
2022 Latest Caselaw 7844 MP

                              1

                                                   M.P. No.539/2020

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT JABALPUR
                              BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT


                 MISC. PETITION No.539 OF 2020


Between:-
   CHANDRAKALA @ BAKUBAI, W/O
   SHRI LATE RAMRAO, AGED ABOUT
   57        YEARS,          OCCUPATION:
   CULTIVATION, R/O MASOD, TEH.
   MULTAI, AT PRESENT R/O POLICE
   LINES, BETUL, TEH. & DIST. BETUL
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA DUBEY-ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SUNITA MATHANKAR, W/O SHRI
   INDRAJEET, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
   OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION, R/O
   MASOD, TEH. MULTAI, DIST. BETUL
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NAMAN       S/O    SHRI    INDRAJEET
   MATHANKAR,         AGED     ABOUT   17
   YEARS,      OCCUPATION:        MINOR
                                         2

                                                                           M.P. No.539/2020

    THROUGH             NATURAL           GUARDIAN
    MOTHER SUNITA, R/O MASOD, TEH.
    MULTAI, DIST. BETUL (MADHYA
    PRADESH)
3. KARAN            S/O      SHRI        INDRAJEET
    MATHANKAR,               AGED        ABOUT         15
    YEARS,           OCCUPATION:               MINOR
    THROUGH             NATURAL           GUARDIAN
    MOTHER SUNITA, R/O MASOD, TEH.
    MULTAI, DIST. BETUL (MADHYA
    PRADESH)
4. RAJENDRA               S/O     SHRI        SAHDEV
    MATHANKAR,               AGED        ABOUT         44
    YEARS, R/O MASOD, TEH. MULTAI,
    DIST. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. MUKESH              S/O       SHRI         SAHDEV
    MATHANKAR,               AGED        ABOUT         30
    YEARS, R/O MASOD, TEH. MULTAI,
    DIST. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on:          15/03/2022
Delivered on:         15/06/2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     3

                                                                  M.P. No.539/2020

This petition coming on for hearing on this day, the court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders dated 31.10.2019 and 20.12.2019 passed in RCSA No.45/2014 by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Multai, District Betul (M.P.).

2. Petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are defendants before the trial Court. Parties are addressed in this order as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff had filed an application i.e. I.A. No.20 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for proposed amendment in the plaint. Said application was filed to bring subsequent events on record. It was stated in application that defendants on basis of decree dated 29.02.1996 passed in Civil Suit No.70-A/1993 have taken possession over the property. In view of subsequent development, plaintiff seeks proposed amendment. Respondents/defendants had opposed the application filed by the plaintiff on the ground that application has been filed belatedly. Judgment and decree was in knowledge of plaintiff since last one year. Evidence of both the parties has already been closed and case is fixed at final hearing stage. Application is only filed to delay the trial and proposed amendment will also change the nature of suit which will prejudice the defendants.

4. Learned trial Court considering the argument of defendants rejected the application for proposed amendment. Thereafter, an application for review

M.P. No.539/2020

was filed to review earlier order rejecting application for proposed amendment. Said review application was also dismissed.

5. Counsel for petitioner/plaintiff submitted that subsequent events are necessary to be brought on record. Application for taking documents on record has already been allowed, therefore, application for proposed amendment on basis of same may also be allowed.

6. It is submitted that application for proposed amendment was filed exercising due diligence. Trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner/plaintiff to bring new and important matter on record by way of proposed amendment. In view of same, prayer is made for setting aside of impugned orders and allowing application for proposed amendment.

7. Heard the counsel for petitioner/plaintiff.

8. On perusing the order passed by the trial Court, it is found that application has been filed at final argument stage. Stage of pleadings and adducing evidence is already over. Plaintiff has filed an application with delay. Amendment if allowed, will change the nature of suit. Trial Court has passed a reasoned order and no interference is called for, therefore, miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE sp/-

SUNIL Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR PATEL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

KUMAR 2.5.4.20=3ad456309c8cfa67fdf9acdac6949bbc6ea3 342f02b1af1bdaf3424a04c11d99, pseudonym=EB80E81424E3C3A3FCB5801D65B573 419C2D9C68, serialNumber=5011B37A3DD5E32019F501F10E878

PATEL D2F118732491B5F40BDC9923237D954365B, cn=SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.06.16 14:35:04 +05'30'