Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parsuram vs Devmani on 20 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 20 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 2171 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. PARSURAM S/O RAMSIROMANI DWIVEDI, AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER, R/O
VILLAGE KARHI KHURD POST BIHRA TAHSIL
KOTAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHO PRASAD S/O LATE LALMAN DWIVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER,
R/O VILLAGE KARHI KHURD POST BIHRA TAHSIL
KOTAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRIDHAR S/O LATE LALMAN DWIVEDI, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: OCCUPATION
FAR M ER , R/O VILLAGE KARHI KHURD POST
BIHRA TAHSIL KOTAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. MUKUND PRASAD S/O LATE LALMAN DWIVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER,
R/O VILLAGE KARHI KHURD POST BIHRA TAHSIL
KOTAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ANANT PRASAD S/O LATE LALMAN DWIVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER,
R/O VILLAGE KARHI KHURD POST BIHRA TAHSIL
KOTAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI R.N. DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DEVMANI S/O RAMSIROMANI DWIVEDI, AGED
ABOUT 76 YEARS, (ILLEGITIMATE CHILD),
OCCUPATION FARMER, R/O VILLAGE KARHI
KHURD, POST BIHRA TAHSIL KOTAR DISTT.
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. OMPRAKASH S/O RAMSIROMANI DIWEDI, AGED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 10/20/2023
7:42:49 PM
2
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER, R/O
VILLAGE KARHI KHURD, POST BIHRA TAHSIL
KOTAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. MOLIYA W/O RAMSIROMANI DIWEDI,
AGED ABOUT 96 YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER,
R/O VILLAGE KARHI KHURD, POST BIHRA
TAHSIL KOTAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT. GULJARIYA DEVI W/O LALMANI PANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION FARMER,
R/O VILLAGE KARHI KHURD, POST BIHRA
TAHSIL KOTAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. INDRAMANI PRASAD S/O NARMADA PRASAD
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCCUPATION
FARMER, R/O VILLAGE KARHI KHURD, POST
BIHRA TAHSIL KOTAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR, SATNA DISTT.
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAYENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPNDENTS NO.1 AND 2)
(SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.6/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition is filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved of
order dated 22/06/2021 passed by learned 6th Civil Judge Class-II, Satna in
RCS No.56A/2015 whereby trial Court has rejected an application under Order
6 Rule 17, CPC on the ground that trial had commenced and one of the
witnesses of the plaintiffs was already examined before the trial Court.
2. Shri R.N. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that he
would like to place reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 10/20/2023
7:42:49 PM
case of Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another, (2006)
6 SCC 498. Reading from para-17, it is submitted that commencement of the
trial Court should be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final
hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses filing of documents and addressing
of arguments. In this backdrop, Hon'ble Supreme Court floating a fact that
parties are yet to file their documents, set aside the order of Lower Court
rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement in view of
proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
3. Shri Vijayendra Singh Choudhary, learned counsel for respondents No.1
and 2 submits that proposed amendment is going to change the nature of the
suit and has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court.
4. However, facts of that case are different from the present case. In the
present case, such wide meaning cannot be given to the terminology
"commencement of trial like final hearing of suit, examination of witnesses,
filing of documents and addressing of arguments etc." In the true sense, once
issues are framed, affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4, CPC is tendered or evidence
in lieu of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC is tendered, then trial is said to
have commenced.
5. It is petitioners' contention that amendment is clarificatory in nature and
has to be made on account of change of counsel.
6. Under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC change of the counsel is not one of the
conditions to permit amendment in the pleadings. No reason is given that why
that clarification could not be given earlier. There is no material on record to
show that amendment is based on discovery of any new material which even
after exercise of due diligence was not available to the petitioners/plaintiffs.
Thus, when impugned order is tested in this light, it cannot be faulted with.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 10/20/2023
7:42:49 PM
7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 10/20/2023
7:42:49 PM
