Krishan Pratap Singh vs Rajrakhan Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17056 MP

                                                       1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                           ON THE 13 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                           MISC. PETITION No. 5951 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.

KRISHAN PRATAP SINGH S/O LATE RAGHOPRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAVI KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAJBAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUDESH SINGH D/O LATE RAJKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. BIDESHI SINGH D/O LATE RAJKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. KAMLESH SINGH D/O LATE RAJKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. VISHNU BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE RAGHOPRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. BRIJENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:53:49 PM

(MADHYA PRADESH)

8. VIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O RAJKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

9. KULDEEP KUMAR SINGH S/O RAJKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

10. ROHIT KUMAR SINGH S/O VISHNU BAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

11. ATUL KUMAR SINGH S/O VISHNU BAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

12. AKHILESHWAR SINGH S/O RAJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

13. VIKRAM SINGH S/O BRIJENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI JAI SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS)

AND

1. RAJRAKHAN SINGH S/O LATE SURYAPRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 478 YEARS, VIILAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. GOVIND NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE SURYAPRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE R/O Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:53:49 PM

VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DEVENDRA BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE VIJAYRAJ SINGH @ BRIJRAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. KRISHNA BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE VIJAYRAJ SINGH @ BRIJRAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. ANAND BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE VIJAYRAJ SINGH @ BRIJRAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SMT. SHANTI SINGH W/O LATE ANIRUDDHA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. PRASHANT KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE ANIRUDDHA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

8. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR SIDHI DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

9. SMT. RAMKALI DEVI W/O SHRI NOKHELAL SINGH CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK R/O VILLAGE PANWAR CHOUHANAN TOLA POLICE STATION SIDHI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

10. SMT. KRISHNA SINGH W/O BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK R/O VILLAGE PANWAR CHOUHANAN TOLA POLICE STATION SIDHI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH) Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:53:49 PM

11. SMT. KANCHAN SINGH W/O JITENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK R/O VILLAGE PANWAR CHOUHANAN TOLA POLICE STATION SIDHI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

12. SAVITA SINGH W/O LATE SAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK R/O VILLAGE KITAHNI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

13. VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE SAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE KITAHNI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

14. RAJEEV @ CHATORI SINGH S/O LATE SAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE KITAHNI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

15. HARIGOVIND SINGH S/O KAUSHAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

16. VISHNU BAHADUR SINGH S/O KAUSHAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

17. KUNDESHWAR SINGH S/O KAUSHAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

18. MAHESH PRATAP SINGH S/O INDRAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

19. LAKSHIMAN SINGH S/O INDRAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:53:49 PM

GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

20. ANSHUMAN SINGH S/O RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

21. SUNIL SINGH S/O RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

22. ARUNA SINGH W/O ANIL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 39 Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

23. RITESH SINGH S/O ANIL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 12 YEAR S, OCCUPATION: (MINOR) THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. ARUNA SINGH W/O ANIL SINGH R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

24. SMT. USHA SINGH W/O ANAND BAHADUR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

25. DIRENDRA SINGH S/O RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

26. SMT. SHANTI SINGH D/O LATE SURYAPRATAP SINGH W/O LATE HARINATH SINGH R/O VILLAGE TILKHAN (JOKAHA TOLA) POST TILKHAN TEHSIL SIRMOUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

27. SMT. ANNA SINGH D/O LATE SURYAPRATAP SINGH W/O SHRIMAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE TILKHAN (JOKAHA TOLA) POST TILKHAN TEHSIL SIRMOUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:53:49 PM

28. SMT. VINOD SINGH D/O LATE SURYAPRATAP SINGH W/O AMRESH PRATAP SINGH R/O H. NO. 285 WARD NO. 50 IN FRONT OF GREEN LODGE ANAND NAGAR KHANDWA DISTRICT KHANDWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

29. SMT. SUNEETA SINGH D/O LATE SURYAPRATAP SINGH W/O SUDHAKAR SINGH R/O 549/A/1 JAWAHAR COLONY NEAR SAI BABA SOCIETY SARDAR NAGAR AHMADABAD (GUJRAT) (GUJARAT)

30. SMT. SULAKSHANA SINGH D/O LATE VIJAYRAJ S I N G H R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

31. SMT. RAMKALI SINGH W/O LATE BALRAM SINGH R/OI VILLAGE BANJARI (KITAHNI) TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

32. SMT. KANCHAN SINGH D/O LATE BALRAM SINGH W/O ACHYUT SURENDRA SINGH PARIHAR R/O VILLAGE BANJARI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS

WARD NO. 11 SHASTRI NAGAR SIDHI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

33. PUSHPARAJ SINGH S/O SHYAMRAJ SINGH PAR IHAR R/O VILLAGE KARAUNDIYA UTTAR TOLA SHASTRINAGAR SIDHI POST SIDHI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

34. SAROJ SINGH W/O SHRI PUSHPARAJ SINGH PAR IHAR R/O VILLAGE KARAUNDIYA UTTAR TOLA SHASTRINAGAR SIDHI POST SIDHI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

35. SIDWIDATRI SINGH S/O PRATEEK SINGH PARIHAR OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER PRATEEK SINGH S/O SHRI PUSHPARAJ SINGH PARIHAR R/O VILLAGE KARAUNDIYA UTTAR TOLA SHASTRINAGAR SIDHI POST SIDHI TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:53:49 PM

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAMSUPHAL CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 11/PLAINTIFFS)

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

ORDER With the consent, finally heard.

2. The petitioners have called in question the order dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P/6) whereby his two applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 13 Rule 10 C.P.C. were rejected. In addition, petitioners have called in question in order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P/7) whereby his right to lead evidence is closed.

3. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed a suit in which plaintiffs' evidence is concluded on 12/14.09.2023. Shri Jay Shukla submits that the evidence of plaintiffs was closed on 14.09.2023 whereas Shri Ramsuphal Chaturvedi submits that it was closed on 12.09.2023. The fact remains that almost 10 days before the right was closed, evidence of plaintiffs was closed.

4. So far application for amendment is concerned, it was solely rejected in the teeth of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.

5. Shri Jai Shukla placed reliance on a recent judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Another and urged that solely on the ground of delay, amendment should not be disallowed.

6. The rejection of application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC is assailed by taking assistance of (2009) 13 SCC 25, Lakshmi and Another v. Chinnammal @ Rayyammal and Others.

7. Lastly, it is submitted that the decision to close the right to lead Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:53:49 PM

evidence is taken in a hyper technical manner without considering the factual backdrop of the matter and Court below has failed to see that the plaintiffs have closed his evidence very recently, almost 10 days back.

8. Shri Ramsuphal Chaturvedi supported the impugned orders and submits that nothing prevented the petitioners/defendants to file amendment application before conclusion of evidence of plaintiffs. Moreso, when written statement was filed almost 9 years back. He supported the impugned orders.

9. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

10. Parties were heard at length and record is perused.

11. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) summed up its conclusions in para 70. The relevant clauses read as under :-

"70. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

(ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision."

12. In the light of this recent judgment, I find substance in the argument of Shri Jai Shukla that delay alone cannot be a ground to reject the amendment application. Thus, Court below needs to examine the amendment application afresh by taking into account the judgment of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra).

13. The application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC is also rejected by a cryptic order in Lakshmi and Another (supra). It was held that if document is Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:53:49 PM

essential for proving a case, ordinarily the same should not be refused. It is the duty of the Court to find out the truth. Thus, Court is required to examine this application also afresh.

14. The right to lead evidence is also closed in a hyper technical manner and therefore said order dated 21.09.2023 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Resultantly, both the impugned orders dated 14.09.2023 and 21.09.2023 are set aside. The Court below shall rehear the parties on the said applications and take a decision afresh in accordance with law.

15. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE HK

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 10/16/2023 5:53:49 PM