Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivshankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.27/2017 (Shivshankar vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
1
Indore, Dated: 10.01.2018
Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel alongwith Shri Neelesh
Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
The petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court taking exception to the order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.25-A/2014 rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 18 CPC and also closing the right of evidence of the plaintiff.
The facts necessary and relevant for disposal of this writ petition in nutshell are to the effect that suit for declaration, injunction is pending consideration. The amendment application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed on 01.12.2016 with further direction to make necessary amendment in the plaint within three days. It appears that the plaintiff could not carry out the amendment within the stipulated period instead carried out the amendment on 07.12.2016 and therefore, moved the aforesaid application for condonation of delay in carrying out the amendment. The trial Court took strong exception to the conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff while amending the plaint beyond the period granted by the trial Court without permission and as a sequel thereto, the trial Court has also closed the right of evidence of the plaintiff by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in fact has only carried out the amendment allowed by the trial Court though belatedly and nothing new has been added to the record by way of amendment what has been allowed earlier. The trial Court has not addressed on the reasons for delay caused in carrying out the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.27/2017 (Shivshankar vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 2 amendment. True, it is that before actually carrying out the amendment, no permission was sought or tendered unconditional apology. He, however, submits that the closure of right to lead evidence by the impugned order has seriously jeopardized the interest of the plaintiff. He also submits that procedural laws are required to be adhered to keeping in mind the concept of justice, equity and good conscience and if any default is committed by the advocate in carrying out the amendment within the time stipulated, the party may not be made to suffer for such lapse. With aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this Court may impose such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper and allow the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence for just decision in the suit.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate supports the order impugned with the contention that the suit is more than 12 years old. Despite there is an order passed by this Court to decide the suit within nine months as indicated in the order impugned, the plaintiff has not taken steps to carry out the amendment as ordered by the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the order of the trial Court does not warrant interference in the order impugned, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
Heard.
At the outset, this Court as a matter of fact does not see any jurisdictional error or the illegality in the order impugned. Nevertheless, one cannot lose sight of the fact except carrying out the amendment beyond the stipulated period in the order dated 01.12.2016, the plaintiff has not committed any act tantamounting to judicial indiscipline warranting closure of his right to evidence and, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.27/2017 (Shivshankar vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) 3 therefore, in the fitness of things, it is desirable that amendment so carried out by the plaintiff may be taken into consideration allowing the plaintiff to substitute the amendment, of course, with costs which this Court quantified at Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) which shall be deposited on or before the next date fixed in the suit. As a consequence thereof, this Court is inclined to allow the plaintiff to lead evidence in a time bound program to be scheduled by the trial Court. Any intentional avoidance in recording of evidence by the plaintiff shall in no circumstance be condoned and trial Court shall proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with program so fixed. To strike balance between the parties, it is ordered that both parties shall file an application for expeditious disposal of the suit which shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.
Both parties shall appear before the trial Court on the next date fixed in the suit.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Rohit Arya) Judge Kafeel Kafeel Ahmed Digitally signed by Kafeel Ahmed Ansari DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Ansari 2.5.4.20=08345dcd49ce70b9482a0cdd0963669f80e6 4e3c96adeca6531dd3cb6f8f91fd, cn=Kafeel Ahmed Ansari Date: 2018.01.18 16:15:08 +05'30'