Ramnarayan vs Malkhan Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8485 MP

                          1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                ON THE 13th OF JUNE, 2023
               MISC. PETITION No. 384 of 2020

BETWEEN:-

RAMNARAYAN S/O SHRI AMAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT     72     YEARS,    OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE KAHURI KALAN,
TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.S.SINGH - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI AKSHAY PAWAR -
ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    MALKHAN SINGH S/O SHRI BHAGWAN
      SINGH R/O 359-B SECTOR BABA NAGAR
      SHAHPURA, DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    KARAN S/O SHRI HALKERAM, AGED
      ADULT, R/O 824 INDIRA NAGAR BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
      DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    SUB REGISTAR GOVINDPURA CIRCLE
      PARI BAZAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    TEHSILDAR M.P NAGAR CIRCLE BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 BY SHRI PRATEEK DUBEY - ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 BY MS.PRASHANSHA SINGH BAIS - PANEL LAYWER)
                                    2


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

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by 7th Addl. District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No.499-A/2015 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of sale-deed as null and void as well as for declaration that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Khasra No.515 (as per Rin Pustika 515/k) ad measuring 1.16 acres situated in village Khajuri Kalan, Patwari Halka No.19, Tahsil Huzur, Bhopal. During the pendency of the civil suit it was realized by the newly engaged counsel that Khasra No.515 has been wrongly mentioned in the civil suit and wanted to incorporate the correct Khasra No. However, the said application has been rejected by the impugned order merely on the ground that the amendment has been sought after commencement of the trial. It is further submitted that where the amendment is necessary for just decision of the case then the same should be allowed and to butress his contention counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi v. Nandram, (2015) 13 SCC 132 and in the case of Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had claimed that he had put his thumb impression on the

plaint by having faith on his earlier counsel. He had claimed that he is an illiterate person having no knowledge of Hindi and English language but the petitioner had appeared in the witness box and had deposed about Khasra No. and thus it is clear that the reason assigned by the petitioner in the amendment application that he is not having knowledge of Hindi or English language is per se false. Further, the change of Khasra No. would result in change in the subject matter of the suit requiring the de novo trial. Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme court in the case of Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

5. The suit was filed in the year 2015 with the specific Khasra No. It is true that the plaint was drafted in English and it contains the thumb impression of the petitioner, but that is not the end of the mater. The evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner is already over and the trial is at the stage of recording of evidence of defence witnesses and affidavits of some of the defence witnesses under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC have also been filed. The petitioner had appeared as witness in the witness box and he has deposed in accordance with the plaint filed by him, therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that he had put his thumb impression on the plaint by relying upon the earlier counsel is incorrect. Furthermore, the petitioner has not filed the affidavit of his earlier counsel to support his contention that his thumb impression was obtained without informing him about the contents of the plaint.

6. Be that as it may be.

7. If the subject matter of the suit is changed after 8 years of its institution then it would necessarily result in de novo trial warranting filing of fresh written statement. It is true that the application for amendment cannot be rejected on technical grounds and if the amendment is required for just decision of the case then the same can be allowed subject to payment of cost but, in the present case, the petitioner has failed to assign any good reason for making incorrect averments in the plaint.

8. Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application. As no jurisdictional error was committed by the trial court, accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.

9. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 27.2.2021 is also hereby vacated.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE HEMANT SARAF 2023.06.14 19:30:08 +05'30'

HS