Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Gori Devi@Vimla Vatra vs Narayan Das Agrawal on 29 August, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19826
1 MP-4634-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4634 of 2024
SMT. GORI DEVI@VIMLA VATRA
Versus
NARAYAN DAS AGRAWAL
Appearance:
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava- learned Counsel for petitioner/ defendant.
Shri Raghvendra Singh Parihar- learned Counsel for respondent/
plaintiff.
ORDER
The present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed at the instance of petitioner- defendant
assailing the order dated 03-08-2024 passed by 20th Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Gwalior in Regular Civil Suit No. 692-A of 2020, whereby the
application filed by petitioner- defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with
Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment in written statement as well as
application filed by petitioner- defendant under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC for
calling the record of judgment and decree passed by trial Court in connection
with RCSA No. 774 of 2018 ( Narayan Das vs. Girraj) has been rejected.
Being aggrieved with the impugned order, it is the contention of
learned Counsel for petitioner- defendant that on 09-12-2020, respondent-
plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent in respect of shop i.e.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19826
2 MP-4634-2024
ground floor ad-measuring 300 sq. ft of Municipal Building No. 918/21
situated at Chawdi Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior which was given on the basis of
oral tenancy to petitioner- defendant at the rate of rent of Rs.1200/- per
month, against which defendant filed her written statement. Defendant filed
an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for
amendment of written statement, which was rejected by the Trial Court
without objection of plaintiff, on the ground of delay. Further, in RCSA
No.774 of 2018 a decree was passed wherein plaintiff had claimed himself as
owner of the property on the basis of ''Will'' and and the plaintiff in collusion
with defendant had filed a compromise application, which is necessary for
just decision of present matter. The application filed by defendant under
Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC for calling record of such RCSA No. 774 of 2018
which was also rejected by the Trial Court vide impugned order holding that
defendant wants to linger the matter by calling record of RCSA No.774 of
2018. The trial Court without considering such aspects of the matter, rejected
both the applications vide impugned order, which is contrary to settled
principle of law.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent- plaintiff supported
the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
On perusal of contents of application under Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC,
it was found that in connection with RCSA No.774 of 2018, a decree was
passed wherein the plaintiff had claimed himself as owner of the property on
the basis of ''Will'' and and the plaintiff in collusion with defendant had filed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19826
3 MP-4634-2024
a compromise application and copy of which is on record, which is justified
for summoning the original record of RCSA No.774 of 2018 and it is
necessary for plaintiff to prove the executed ''Will''. While amendment is an
explanatory in nature and plaintiff should have a chance for rebuttal to prove
his case and there is no harm to him and nature of the suit will not change,
proposed amendment is the basis of case which go to the root of case, then
the trial Court ought to have allowed application of defendant seeking
amendment in her written statement.
In view of above, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set
aside with a direction to the trial Court to allow both the applications filed by
defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and under
Order 13 Rule 10 of CPC and to proceed with the matter in accordance with
law.
Accordingly, the instant misc. petitions stands disposed of. No order as
to costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
