Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akhil Bhartiy Akhada Parishad ... vs Shyam Shakari Ghr Nirman Sanstha ... on 12 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6865
1 MP-3912-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3912 of 2024
AKHIL BHARTIY AKHADA PARISHAD NEELGANGA UJJAIN
THROUGH LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR RAMESHWARGIRI MAHARAJ
GUR AND OTHERS
Versus
SHYAM SHAKARI GHR NIRMAN SANSTHA MARYADIT UJJAIN
THROUGH ADHYAKSH DHEERAJ GAUBHUJ AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhilash Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Murari Lal Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the defendants/petitioners being aggrieved by the order
dated 08.07.2024 passed by the trial Court whereby application under Order
6 Rule 17 of the CPC preferred by the plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint
has been allowed.
2. The plaintiffs have instituted an action against the defendants for
declaration of title, removal of encroachment and mesne profits and for
permanent injunction. The claim has been contested by the defendants by
filing their written statement to the same. On pleadings of the parties issues
were framed by the trial Court after which plaintiff led evidence. Thereafter
plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6865
2 MP-3912-2024
amendment of the plaint to plead that during pendency of the suit he has
been dispossessed from the suit land. The application was contested by the
defendants by filing reply to the same. The application has been allowed by
the trial Court by observing that the proposed amendment is based upon
subsequent events and appears to be just and necessary for a fair and
complete adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
3. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the defendants on the
ground that the plaintiff was already aware even prior to filing of the suit that
the defendant is in possession of the suit land. The application has been filed
highly belatedly after closure of plaintiff's evidence. The suit was instituted
in the year 2019 whereas the amendment has been proposed after a period of
5 years. In the examination of plaintiff's witnesses it has already been
brought on record that the plaintiff has been aware of the possession of the
defendants. The amendment hence could not have been permitted. Reliance
has been placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court in Vidyabai and
Another V/s. Padmalatha and Another AIR 2009 SC 1433 and of this Court
i n M.P. No.1679/2022 (Vigyan Shastri V/s. M/s. Rusoma Laboratories and
Others) order dated 17.11.2022.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff has supported the
impugned order.
5. The application for amendment was preferred by the plaintiff
based upon subsequent events i.e. of being dispossessed from the suit land
during pendency of the suit. Though it has been contended by the defendants
that the plaintiff was always aware of possession of the defendants but that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:6865
3 MP-3912-2024
would be a matter of evidence to be considered at the appropriate stage of
proceedings. Though various paragraphs of deposition of plaintiff's
witnesses have been referred to show that plaintiff had knowledge of
possession of defendants but that is not an admitted position and the
interpretation of the statements would also required to be done by the trial
Court at the time of decision. Presently it cannot be said that the plaintiff was
admittedly aware of possession of defendants prior to institution of the suit.
The judgments hence relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants
do not help him in any manner.
6. The amendment proposed is based upon subsequent events and is
necessary for a just and fair adjudication of the disputes between the parties
hence has rightly been permitted by the trial Court. Consequently the
impugned order dated 08.07.2024 is affirmed as a result of which the petition
is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
