Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Chaudhary Agency Distributor ... vs Malva Motors Authorized Dealer Eicher ... on 21 February, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 880 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
M/S CHAUDHARY AGENCY DISTRIBUTOR EICHER
TRACTORS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH
PARTNERS -
(A) SHAILENDRA CHAUDHARY S/O MAHENDRA
CHAUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS
(B) RAJESH CHAUDHARY S/O. MAHENDRA
CHAUDHARY, AGED MAJOR, OCCUPATION BUSINESS.
BOTH R/O. 53, HAMIDIYA ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RISHIRAJ TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MALVA MOTORS AUTHORIZED DEALER EICHER
TRACTOR LIMITED (SALES AND SERVICE AND
SPARE) THROUGH PARTNER
(A) SHRI DEVENDRA S/O SHRIRAM PRASAD JI
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O. INFRONT OF DRP LINE MHOW-
NEEMUCH ROAD, MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
( B ) SHRI MADHUSUDAN SHARMA S/O
RADHEYSHYAM SHARMA AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O. INFRONT
OF DRP LINE MHOW-NEEMUCH ROAD,
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAMPRASAD S/O KACHRU JI SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O DALODA CHAUPATI ,TEHSIL DALODA,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified .....RESPONDENTS
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE (NONE)
Signing time: 2/27/2023
11:08:05 AM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard.
This petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the trial court rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by defendant No.2 for amendment of the written statement for taking its counter claim on record.
The application has been rejected by the trial court by observing that as per defendant No.2 itself cause of action for laying the counter claim accrued on 18.1.2022 whereas the written statement has already been filed on 17.6.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date, ie., 18.1.2022 mentioned in the application is a bonafide mistake and / error on part of defendant No.2 particularly when the same is read along with the entire averments as made in the application. For such a mistake defendant No.2 should not be penalised. He prays for grant of permission to file a fresh application before the trial court mentioning the correct date.
Prayer is allowed and the petition is disposed off granting liberty to defendant No.2 to file a fresh application before the trial court itself which shall decide the same on its own merit.
It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Signature Not Verified (PRANAY VERMA)Signed by: SHAILESH JUDGE
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
SS/-
Signing time: 2/27/2023
11:08:05 AM