Mrs Pramila Gandhi vs Mr. Vinit Gandhi
2022 Latest Caselaw 6950 MP

                             1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE


                         BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                  ON THE 09th OF MAY, 2022

              WRIT PETITION No. 13806 of 2021


  Between:-

   MRS PRAMILA GANDHI W/O LATE LILADHAR GANDHI,
   AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION : HOUSE HOLD,
   147, USHA NAGAR EXTENSION,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

   VIKAS GANDHI S/O LATE LILADHAR GANDHI,
   AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2.
   OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
    147, USHA NAGAR EXTENSION,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

   MRS. KALPANA GANDHI W/O VIKAS GANDHI,
   AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3.
   OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD,
   147, USHA NAGAR EXTENSION,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

   VINAY GANDHI S/O LATE LILADHAR GANDHI,
   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. OCCUPATION : BUSINESS,
   KANCHI PURAM,
   BASANT VIHAR,
   BHILWADA - (RAJASTHAN)
                               2

   MRS. PRATIKSHA GANDHI W/O VINAY GANDHI,
   AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
5. OCCUPATION : HOUSE HOLD,
   KANCHI PURAM, BASANT VIHAR,
   BHILWADA - (RAJASTHAN)

   PANKAJ GANDHI S/O LATE LILADHAR GANDHI,
   AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
6.
   OCCUPATION : BUSINESS,
   147, USHA NAGAR EXTENSION,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

   MRS. POOJA GANDHI W/O PANKAJ GANDHI,
   AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
7.
   OCCUPATION: HOUSE HOLD,
   147, USHA NAGAR EXTENSION,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            .....PETITIONERS

     (BY SHRI TARUN KUMAR MODY, ADVOCATE)

     AND


   MR. VINIT GANDHI S/O LATE LILADHAR GANDHI,
   AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION : BUSINESS,
   306, RONAK TOWER,
   11-14 BAILUNTDHAM COLONY,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

   MRS. PRATIBHA GANDHI W/O VINIT GANDHI,
   AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
   306, RONAK TOWER,
   11-14, BAIKUNTDHAM COLONY,
   INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

     SMT. KRISHNA KABRA W/O YOGESH KABRA,
3.
     24, NEW MAHESH NAGAR,
     INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                   3

4. PAWAN SANKLA (PANCHAL) W/O LATE GOPAL PANCHAL,
   34, SHAKTI NAGAR, GALI NO.1,
   RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

     AAKASH KALRA S/O SHRI SHYAMLAL KALRA,
5.
     72, TRIVENI COLONY EXTENSION,
     INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

     URVARSHI KALRA W/O AAKASH KALRA,
6.
     72, TRIVENI COLONY EXTENSION,
     INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                .....RESPONDENTS

     (BY SHRI VINAY SARAF, SENIOR ADVOCATE
     WITH SHRI RIZWAN KHAN, ADVOCATE)


        This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
passed the following :-

                             ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 7 have challenged the order dated 30/06/2021 (Annexure-P/1) passed in Civil Suit No.6-A/2013 by IXth Additional District Judge, Indore whereby their application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement has been rejected.

2. The plaintiffs have instituted an action for declaration that the suit properties as mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint are joint hindu family properties of Late Liladharji Gandhi in which they have 1/4th share, for partition and delivery of

separate possession of their share therein and mesne profit. They have submitted that the suit properties are joint hindu family properties of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7, the same earlier having been held by Late Liladharji Gandhi upon whose death they have acquired share therein.

3. The defendants No.1 to 7 have contested the plaintiffs claim by filing their written statement submitting that the suit properties are not joint hindu family properties of the parties. The same are their self acquired properties.

4. During course of proceedings before trial Court defendants No.1 to 7 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to amend their written statement in which they prayed for raising plea as regards a sale-deed having been executed in the year 2012 by plaintiffs in favour of one Chitranjan Sharma. Averments were also sought to be raised by them as regards and in support of the pleadings already taken by them in their written statement. The plaintiffs contested the application by filing their reply.

5. By the impugned order the amendment application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that proposed amendment could have been made by defendants No.1 to 7 at an earlier point of time itself, that the same have been proposed at a belated stage and that no reason for the delay has been given.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 7 submits that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the amendment

application filed by them. The same was based on subsequent event of sale having been executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendants No.8 to 11 and the fact of them having been impleaded as parties to the suit. The amendment was necessary to be made for clarifying the factual aspects of the matter. As parties had been subsequently added to the suit the proposed amendment were necessitated. The suit is for partition hence each and every party is a plaintiff as well as defendant. The proposed amendments are extremely necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the disputes raised between the parties hence ought to have been allowed.

7. Per contra the learned counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that the impugned order is perfectly justified and no interference in the same is called for.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

9. The suit was filed on 24/02/2014. Written statements were also filed by defendants No.1 to 7 in 2014 itself. During pendency of suit certain alienations have been made by defendants No.1 to 7 in favour of purchaser pendente lite who have consequently been impleaded as parties by plaintiffs. Such impleadment was only on account of sale by defendants No.1 to 7 hence merely for impleadment of purchaser pendente lite, defendants No.1 to 7 would not get any right to make consequential amendment. The proposed amendments show that

they are not related to the fact of execution of sale-deeds by defendants No.1 to 7 and impleadment of purchaser pendente lite as a consequence. The same are related to the averments already contained in the written statement filed by them. The proposed amendments hence cannot be said to have been made in view of the subsequent events.

10. A perusal of the proposed amendment shows that the same is purely based upon the pleadings of the parties as are already existing. The sale deed mentioned in the amendment application is also of the year 2012. There is no reason assigned in the application for not proposing the amendment earlier. No explanation for the delay in making the amendment has been given. Admittedly trial in the suit has already begun and three witnesses of plaintiffs have already been examined. Thus as trial has already commenced, the amendment cannot be allowed without satisfying the Court that the same could not have been made earlier despite due diligence. The same not having been done is not permissible at this stage. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidyadevi V/s. Premlata reported in AIR 2009 SC 1443.

11. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by learned counsel for defendants 1 to 7 in Baldev Singh and Others V/s. Manohar Singh and Another reported in (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498, Ram Niranjan Kajaria V/s. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and Others reported in (2015) 10 Supreme

Court Cases 203 and Chakreshwari Constructions Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Manohar Lal reported in 2017 (3) M.P.L.J. 717 do not help them in any manner. The proposed amendments do not appear to be relevant and necessary for deciding the dispute of the parties. The pleadings as proposed are already contained in the written statement. No new plea is sought to be raised. The averments are not sought to be clarified or explained by defendants 1 to 7.

12. Thus the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by defendants 1 to 7 for amendment in their written statements. The impugned order is hence perfectly justified and is hereby affirmed in view of which the petition stands dismissed.

                                             (Pranay Verma)
Aiyer*                                            Judge
Digitally signed by
JAGDISHAN AIYER
Date: 2022.05.10
10:27:03 +05'30'