Prakash Kumar vs Veerendra
2022 Latest Caselaw 3308 MP

                                      1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                  BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                            ON THE 9th OF MARCH, 2022

                       MISC. PETITION No. 394 of 2018

         Between:-
1.       PRAKASH KUMAR S/O POTERAM SHUKLA , AGED
         ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. TEACHER
         R/O. TILLAKWARD DEORI TEH. DEORI (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

2.       SMT KRISHNA BAI W/O PRAKSSH KUMAR
         SHUKLA , AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
         HOUSEWIFE TILAAKWARD DEORI TEHSIL DEORI
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                    .....PETITIONER
         (By Shri Shyam Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners)

         AND

1.       VEERENDRA S/O DURGAPRASAD GAUTAM , AGED
         ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
         R/O. DOBHI TEH. DEORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.       SMT SHYAMABAI W/O VEERENDRA KUMAR
         GAUTAM , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
         HOUSEWIFE DOBHI TEH S I L DEORI (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

3.       STATE OF MP THROUGH COLLECTOR SAGAR
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
         (By Shri T.S. Rupraha, Senior Advocate with Shri Uma Shankar Tiwari,
         Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.
         Shri Anil Upadhyay, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.3/State. )

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

By the instant petition, the petitioners/defendants are questioning the validity of the order dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure-P/9) passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II Sagar (MP) in a pending civil suit no.178-A/2016 whereby, the trial Court dismissed the application submitted by the petitioners / defendants under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that due to the proposed amendments nature of the civil suit would change the nature of the case and previous application has already been rejected.

2. The respondents No.1 and 2 has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Court, Sagar with respect to the Khasra No.367, area 1.49 Hectare and Khasra No.365, area 1.14 hectare of Dobhi, PH No.62, Circle Maharajpur, Block & Tashil Deori, District Sagar, against petitioners/defendants which has been registered as Civil Suit No.178-A/2016. Petitioners have filed their written statement of the suit and also contended that there is no dispute regarding

the suit land of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs themselves have encroached the land khasra No.364 of the petitioners/defendants. Defendants/petitioners have also filed t h e counter claim for declaration, injunction and compensation against the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Thereafter respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed his written statement to the counter claim and denied all the contentions raised therein. Since in the written statement to counter claim some new facts have been pleaded by the plaintiff, therefore for clarification the petitioners have previously filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC on 03.02.2017 and proposed some amendments in the written statement filed in the main suit and defendants have filed their reply to that application. Thereafter, the trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 13.04.2017, assigning reasons that the petitioners cannot be permitted to incorporate any amendment in their written statement and counter claim on the basis of new facts raised/pleaded in written statement of counter claim because the issues are framed and the case is fixed for the evidence. Against the said order petitioners have earlier approached before this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.7411/2017, which was decided vide order dated 23.06.2017 with the direction to file fresh application before the trial Court and also mentioned that the order dated 13.04.2017 will not affect the adjudication of the said application. After the order of this Court, petitioners had filed another fresh application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC before the trial Court with all the required amendments in their reply and it is also made clear that the said required amendments are rectification of clerical error and after the amendment the nature of the suit would not change and respondents are making only oral objection, but they have not filed written objection in this regard.

3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Mount Mary Enterprises Vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Private Limited, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 182.

4 . The Court below dismissed the application submitted by the petitioners/defendants under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC stating that due to the proposed amendments, the nature of the civil suit would change the nature of the case and previous application has already been rejected.

5. I do not find any infirmity in the reasons given by the Court below while rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants is concerned, it is not applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the order passed by the Court below does not call for any interference.

6. Resultantly, the petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed. Needless to say that the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2018 stands also vacated. Trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

Let copy of this order be send to the concerned Court for information.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE Vin**

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by VINOD SHARMA Date: 2022.03.10 16:23:07 IST