Manoharlal vs Ramniwas
2023 Latest Caselaw 19905 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manoharlal vs Ramniwas on 28 November, 2023

                                                               1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
                                              ON THE 28 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                               MISC. PETITION No. 5203 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           MANOHARLAL S/O LATE PANNALAL GAUR, AGED
                           ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED R/O
                           VILLAGE CHEEPABAD, TEHSIL KHIRKIYA DISTRICT
                           HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ADITYA AHIWASI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    RAMNIWAS S/O LATE SHRI PANNALAL GAUR,
                                 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF
                                 EMPLOYED R/O VILLAGE CHEEPABAD TEHSIL
                                 KHIRKIYA  DISTRICT   HARDA    (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    STATE  OF   MADHYA    PRADESH THROUGH
                                 COLLECTOR HARDA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1
                           AND SHRI REJI MATHAI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

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

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 09.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) by the said order application of the petitioner - defendant for amendment in written statement has been rejected by the trial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant submits that the trial

Court has wrongly rejected the application by applying the ratio of Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another (2009) 2 SCC 409. It is further submitted that as per para 11 of the said judgment commencement of proceeding would mean examine-in-chief of the witness. It is also contended that on the date of rejection of the application for amendment in written statement examination-in-chief of plaintiff witness had not yet commenced, hence, in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai (supra), trial had not commenced, thus, the order of the trial Court is bad in law. Learned counsel further submits that he only wanted to take an objection that the valuation of the suit should be as per market value of the land and by

rejection of the amendment, his right to take such an objection has been taken away. It is also submitted that the defendant has a right to take objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

3. Per contra, Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff has pointed out to amended para 7 of the written statement of the defendant, wherein the objection as to valuation of the suit has already been taken. The plaintiff has valued the suit as per the land revenue of the land because it is an agricultural land. The defendant in amended para 7 has already taken objection that the valuation of the suit should be as per market value of the property and also that Court fee should be paid on the said valuation. Learned counsel also points out that issue No.5 has already been framed, which relates to valuation of the suit and payment of Court fee.

4. Looking to the aforesaid facts, in my opinion though the amendment was a pre-trial amendment, yet, the objection that the defendant wants to take by way of said amendment is already there in the written statement and the

amendment sought for by application (Annexure P/5) was superfluous. This amendment seems to be filed as a delaying tactics. Thus, interference under supervisory jurisdiction is uncalled for.

5. The defendant while leading evidence as to issue No.5 is always at liberty to lead evidence as to valuation of the suit and payment of Court fee, as the objection is already there in existing para 7 of the written statement.

6. Consequently, petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj