Madhya Pradesh High Court
Poonam vs Smt.Chandraprabha on 23 June, 2014
1 Writ Petition No.3282/2014
(Poonam and others Vs. Smt. Chandraprabha and others)
23/06/2014
Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate for petitioners.
This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by defendants is directed against the
order dated 5/3/2014 in Civil Suit No.39-A/2014 passed
by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha.
By aforesaid order, learned Trial Judge has allowed the
application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by
plaintiffs/respondent no.1 and 2.
A suit for declaration and permanent injunction is pending consideration before the Trial Court. Plaintiffs by aforesaid application sought to amend the plaint incorporating the fact of forcible possession being taken on the suit property by the heirs of defendants. Application was opposed on the premise that amendment is belated and it is intended to delay the proceedings. The Trial Court having considered the submissions of the parties has held that as the suit for declaration and permanent injunction as regards suit property has been filed, the fact of forcible possession by defendants intended to be incorporated by plaintiffs in fact is neither independent of the factual matrix of the suit nor could be said to be changing nature of the suit, as 2 Writ Petition No.3282/2014 (Poonam and others Vs. Smt. Chandraprabha and others) the amendment sought relates to the suit property, which is the subject matter of the suit before the Trial Court. The Trial Court subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- has allowed the application.
Having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that in fact the Trial Court has exercised its discretion while allowing the amendment to ensure complete justice between the parties. Defendants are always free to amend the written statement and contest the claim of plaintiffs. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to defendants. As such, the amendment allowed by the Trial Court is found to have exercised discretion judiciously. Hence, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Rohit Arya) Judge Arun*