Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram vs Kamal Singh on 14 May, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12793
1 MP-2137-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2137 of 2025
BALRAM
Versus
KAMAL SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Sagre, learned counsel for the petitioner.
ORDER
1. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the trial Court whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint has been partly rejected.
2. The suit has been instituted by plaintiff for declaration of title, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, property has been sold by defendant No.2 on the basis of which the purchaser has been impleaded as party to the suit. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint to inter alia seek relief of preemption in respect of the suit property. The said relief has been denied to him by the trial Court on the ground that the same would change the nature of the suit.
3. At the time of filing of the suit the suit property was not sold and there was only an apprehension of the same being sold. During pendency of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 16-05-2025 14:12:23 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12793 2 MP-2137-2025 the suit the same has been sold resulting in impleadment of purchaser pendente lite. Since the property has now in fact been sold it gave rise of cause for the plaintiff to claim the right of preemption which has been sought to be claimed by him by way of the application under consideration. The said prayer has been declined by the trial Court on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit.
4. The plaintiff has not sought for deletion of the relief already claimed by him but on the basis of the already existing averments has sought for an alternate relief. The same is always permissible and the same does not change the nature of the suit. In any case the amendment has been necessitated on account of the events which have taken place during pendency of the suit and it is well settled that the subsequent events are bound to be taken note of by the Court.
5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application preferred by the plaintiff in its entirety but has erred in rejecting the same partially. The impugned order is hence modified and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC preferred by the plaintiff is allowed in its entirety.
6. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 16-05-2025 14:12:23