Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Imran vs Pushpanjali Shukla on 17 October, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 4695 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. MOHAMMAD IMRAN S/O LATE MOHAMMAD
IKRAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB R/O WARD NO. 33/24 BEHIND
MUKATI MANDIR GHOGHAR REWA TAHSIL
HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MOHAMMAD RIJVAN S/O LATE MOHAMMAD
IKRAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB R/O WARD NO. 33/24 BEHIND
MUKATI MANDIR GHOGHAR REWA TAHSIL
HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MOHAMMAD IRFAN S/O LATE MOHAMMAD
IKRAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB R/O WARD NO. 33/24 BEHIND
MUKATI MANDIR GHOGHAR REWA TAHSIL
HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. TASLIM BANO W/O NUADAT ALI D/O LATE
IKRAM KHAN ALIAS YASIN AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O WARD
NO. 33/24 BEHIND MUKATI MANDIR GHOGHAR
REWA TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PARVEEN BANO W/O MUSTKIN AHMAD D/O
LATE IKRAM KHAN ALIAS YASIN AGED ABOUT
36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O
WARD NO. 33/24 BEHIND MUKATI MANDIR
GHOGHAR REWA TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. YASMEEN BANO D/O LATE IKRAM KHAN ALIAS
YASIN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB R/O WARD NO. 33/24 BEHIND
MUKATI MANDIR GHOGHAR REWA TAHSIL
HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS
(BY SHRI RAVENDRA SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
12:14:14 PM
2
AND
1. PUSHPANJALI SHUKLA S/O SHRI SHANKAR LAL
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VILLAGE
GODAHAR POST OFFICE A.G. COLLEGE REWA
TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DILIP SHUKLA S/O SHRI SHANKAR LAL
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, VILLAGE
GODAHAR POST OFFICE A.G. COLLEGE REWA
TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHANKAR LAL SHUKLA S/O SHRI JAMUNA
PRASAD SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
VILLAGE GODAHAR POST OFFICE A.G.
COLLEGE REWA TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
R E W A DISTRICT- REWA (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAJKUMAR SHUKLA S/O SHANKAR LAL
S H U K L A VILLAGE DUARI, TEHSIL HUZUR,
DITRICT- REWA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SAVITRI D/O SHANKAR LAL SHUKLA VILLAGE
DUARI, TEHSIL HUZUR, DITRICT- REWA,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SMT. RAMKALI W/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA
PRASAD SHUKLA VILLAGE GODAHAR, TAHSIL
HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. HORIL SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA
PRASAD SHUKLA VILLAGE GODAHAR, TAHSIL
HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. ANIL SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA PRASAD
SHUKLA VILLAGE GODAHAR, TAHSIL HUZUR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. VIDHYA SHUKLA D/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA
PRASAD SHUKLA VILLAGE GODAHAR, TAHSIL
HUZUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. CHHOTKI D/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA PRASAD
SHUKLA VILLAGE GODAHAR, TAHSIL HUZUR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
12:14:14 PM
3
12. GYANTI D/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA PRASAD
SHUKLA VILLAGE GODAHAR, TAHSIL HUZUR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. URMILA D/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA PRASAD
SHUKLA VILLAGE GODAHAR, TAHSIL HUZUR
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. PURAN D/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA PRASAD
SHUKLA W/O SHRI NANDU PANDEY VILLAGE
CHAURA, TEHSIL- HUZUR, DISTRICT- REWA,
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
15. SONIYA D/O LATE SHRI JAMUNA PRASAD
SHUKLA W/O SHRI SHIV KUMAR SOGAURA
VILLAGE MAHIYA, TEHSIL RAIPUR
KARTULIYA, DISTRICT- REWA, M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs being aggrieved of order
dated 07/05/2022 passed by learned IX Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rewa
rejecting an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC whereby petitioner-
plaintiff sought to challenge order dated 16/09/2002 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer in revenue proceedings.
The ground for challenging such order by way of amendment is that
earlier counsel had not informed him about the necessity of challenging said
order of Sub-Divisional Officer and when counsel was changed then this fact
came to the knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore, it is prayed that the
amendment be allowed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court
in the case of Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal,
2017 (3) MPLJ 717 wherein placing reliance on para 14 of the judgment it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
12:14:14 PM
submitted that condition (4) is important which provides that refusing
amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation and thus
amendment be allowed. When learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is
asked as to when this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 16/09/2002
came to his knowledge, then he fairly admits that this order was in his
knowledge since beginning. When Shri Ravendra Shukla, learned counsel for
the petitioner-plaintiff is asked that how he will gather limitation to challenge
order dated 16/09/2002, he reads Para - D of the amendment application
pointing out that against the order dated 16/09/2002 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer whereby appeal was accepted and partition was set aside,
Jamuna Prasad Shukla had filed Second Appeal before the Court of Additional
Commissioner, Rewa which came to be dismissed on 01/05/2018, but fact of
the matter is that the order which was passed on 16/09/2002 was within the
knowledge of the petitioner and this fact could not be disputed.
Perusal of the proceedings reveal that the suit was filed in the year 2014.
Issues were framed and affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC was
filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in support of his evidence and then this
application under Order VI Rule 17 was filed. Petitioner-Plaintiff is not in a
position to explain that how application for amendment is within the period of
limitation and why it was not challenged before the trial Court at the time of
filing suit or earlier when it was already within the knowledge of the petitioner-
plaintiff.
In view of such facts when impugned order is tested in the light of
judgment of Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), then the underlying
principle is that amendment proposed can be allowed provided it is bona fide,
Signature Not Verified
relevant and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved in lis.
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
12:14:14 PM
In the present case the aspect of bona fide is missing. Amendment is
moved after five years of filing of the suit and almost 19 years of passing of the
order by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, for lack of bona fide no interference
is called for in the impugned order.
Hence, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANURAG SONI
Signing time: 10/18/2022
12:14:14 PM
