Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajaram Dead Through Lr Hari Singh vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 14 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 3357 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJARAM DEAD THROUGH LR HARI SINGH S/O LATE
SHRI RAJARAM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, KALPI
BRIDGE COLONY MORAR DISTT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI ANAND VINOD BHARDWAJ - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, NEW DELHI
2. THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LAND HEAD
QUARTER, CENTRAL CONDS LUCKNOW (UTTAR
PRADESH)
3. THE DEFENSE STATE OFFICER, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE COMMANDANT, STATION HEAD QUARTER
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLETOR DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT. KASHI BAI W/O LATE SHRI GYASIRAM R/O
KALPI BRIDGE COLONY MORAR GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. RAMESH S/O LATE SHRI GYASIRAM, R/O KALPI
BRIDGE COLONY MORAR GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. UDAYBHAN S/O LATE SHRI GYASIRAM R/O KALPI
BRIDGE COLONY MORAR GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 15-05-2024
12:16:26 PM
2
9. NARAYAN BAI D/O LATE SHRI GYASIRAM R/O
KALPI BRIDGE COLONY MORAR GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. JAMNA BAI D/O LATE SHRI GYASIRAM R/O KALPI
BRIDGE COLONY MORAR GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
11. GOVIND S/O SHRI GYASIRAM THROUGH LRS.
(I) KALAWATI BAI W/O LATE SHRI GOVIND KALPI
BRIDGE COLONY MORAR GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(II) DARSHANLAL S/O LATE SHRI GOVIND KALPI
BRIDGE COLONY MORAR GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(III) GORABAI BATHAM D/O LATE SHRI GOVIND
KALPI BRIDGE COLONY MORAR GWALIOR M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
12. SMT. ANJU BATHAM W/O LATE SHRI AJAY
KUMAR D/O SHRI RAJARAM, AGED ABOUT 40
YE A R S , R/O MAHADIK KI GOTH KAMPOO
LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. SMT. MANJU BATHAM W/O SHRI RAJ KUMAR
BATHAM, R/O CHHATRI ROAD SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR NEWASKAR - DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL
FOR UNION OF INDIA)
(SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
(SHRI SAURABH BHELSEWALE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.14 &
15)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner assailed the order dated 25.6.2022 passed in RCSA
No.15A/2010 by 6th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior whereby application
under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was dismissed.
Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration,
injunction and which was partly decreed and during the pendency of the appeal,
petitioner as well as respondents moved separate applications under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC. Appellate Court considering the documents filed along with
application remanded the matter back to the trial Court by setting aside the
judgment and decree and ordered to record further evidence in respect of
documents already available on record and filed along with the application.
After remand an application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by the plaintiff on
the ground that he wants to incorporate pleadings in respect of documents
allowed by the Appellate Court and for the purpose of clarification of earlier
pleadings. Defendants opposed the application on various grounds including
that facts were already in the knowledge of the petitioner and amendment has
been proposed belatedly and no reason has been assigned in proposing the
amendment at this stage.
Learned trial Court after considering the argument of parties and
proposed amendment, dismissed the application by holding that matter was
remanded by the Appellate Court for the purpose of granting liberty to the
parties to lead evidence in respect of documents filed before Appellate Court
for the first time and therefore, petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the
pleadings and application has been moved belatedly and no reason has been
assigned.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for petitioner submits that documents
filed along with Order 41 Rule 27 CPC are relevant and for the purpose of
explaining the earlier pleadings plaintiff is incorporating the pleadings in respect
of documents. The application was ought to have been allowed. He submits
that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue of proposing
amendment belatedly will not be applicable as after the remand the application
has been moved promptly. He relied upon the judgment delivered in the matter
of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited,
AIR 2022 SC 4356, wherein Apex Court held that the amendment should be
allowed if it is required for effective and proper adjudication of controversy
between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings provided that
amendment does not result in injustice to the other side and by the amendment
parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw earlier clear admission
made by the parties which confers right on the other side and amendment does
not raise a time barred claim. He prays for allowing the petition and application
filed under Order 6 Rule 17 by setting aside the impugned order.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.2 to 4 supported the order passed by
learned trial Court on the ground that trial Court has not committed any error in
dismissing the application as amendment which was proposed was not based
on any subsequent event and amendment is not required for just decision of the
case. They further submit that no reason has been assigned in the application
for explaining the delay and proposing the amendment. It is further submitted
that the Appellate Court has remanded the matter with specific directions and
trial Court cannot travel beyond the remand order. Therefore, permission
cannot be granted to the petitioner to amend the plaint.
After hearing rival parties and after perusal of documents available on
record, it appears that petitioner has moved an application under Order 41 Rule
27 CPC along with documents before the Appellate Court and the same was
allowed. The application was allowed after considering the fact that documents
are relevant meaning thereby there are sufficient pleadings available in the plaint
to show relevancy of documents and after considering the relevancy of
documents application was allowed and matter is remanded and therefore there
is no need to amend the pleadings and incorporate the pleadings in respect of
documents. It cannot be argued by the plaintiff, that there is no pleading in
respect of documents filed before Appellate Court. Plaintiff has not assigned
any reason for proposing the amendment belatedly. The amendment is not
based on any subsequent event. Acceptance of Additional documents or
evidence does not require any amendment. Apex Court in the matter of Life
Insurance Corporation of India(Supra) has issued certain guidelines in respect
of allowing the amendment of plaint. In the present matter the proposed
amendment is not required and matter has been remanded by the Appellate
Court wherein no liberty was granted to the parties to amend the pleadings.
Therefore, the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the matter of Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Supra) is not helpful to the petitioner. Amendment is not
required for effective and proper adjudication of controversy between the
parties.
Sufficient pleadings are already on record and considering the pleadings
of plaintiff, the application was allowed by the appellate Court. The trial Court
has not committed any jurisdictional error or patent illegality in passing the
impugned order. The order appears to be just and proper and admission is
declined. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Rohit
