Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram vs Rajendra Kumar on 25 April, 2016
W.P.6700/14 1
(Balram & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.)
25.04.2016
Shri A.V.Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri D.D.Bansal, learned counsel for the
respondents.
With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally.
In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 17.9.2014, by which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the plaint has been rejected on the ground of delay.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
From perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land on the ground that the same is an ancestral land. The right of the plaintiffs to adduce evidence was closed on 11.9.2014. On that very date, the plaintiffs have filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the plea was sought to be incorporated that the impleadment has been made in the Khasra with different ink. The aforesaid application has been rejected on the ground of delay alone.
It is well settled in law that just and proper amendment can be introduced at any stage. At the best the trial Court could have W.P.6700/14 2 (Balram & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.) imposed costs however, on the ground of delay alone the application should not be rejected. [See: Surender Kumar Sharma v.
Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 626]. The proposed amendment is necessary for just and fair adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. However, the trial Court failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 17.9.2014 cannot be sustained in the eye of law, accordingly the same is hereby quashed. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the petitioner is allowed subject to deposit of costs of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) by the petitioner before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order which shall be payable to the respondents. At this stage, Shri D.D.Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit was filed in the year 2013 and the trial Court be directed to complete the proceedings in the suit in a time bound manner.
In view of aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to conclude the proceedings in the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from W.P.6700/14 3 (Balram & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.) the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw I.A. No. 7782/15 with the liberty to challenge the order dated 11.9.2014 in appeal.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court by FAX.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge vv