Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 March, 2017
1 W.P.No.8673/2016
Balram Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
20.03.2017
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Kamal Jain, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Heard on admission.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 19-11-2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the trial Court whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC preferred by the petitioners as plaintiffs has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit property wherein they have pleaded regarding action of the respondents whereby the respondents are intending to acquire the land of the petitioners for construction of road. Therefore, petitioners sought permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants.
Further submission of petitioners is that respondents/defendants have filed the written statement and have denied the claim made by the petitioners. Thereafter on an application preferred by the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC; commissioner report was sought and subsequently obtained (Annexure P/7) wherein factual reference finds place in report in respect of construction of road over some part of land belonging to the petitioners. According to counsel for the petitioners, the said survey report indicates that part of the land of petitioners which is subject matter of the present suit has been taken by the respondents after filing of the suit. Therefore, the petitioners had to cause necessary amendments in the pleadings as well as relief clause.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 2 W.P.No.8673/2016 opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and argued that the survey report nowhere indicates that part of the land of petitioners has been acquired or taken for the purpose of construction of road. He prayed for dismissal of the petition .
Heard with consent and perused the record.
From perusal of pleadings, documents and arguments advanced, it appears that the petitioners have filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of action of respondents wherein the respondents at the relevant point of time tried to forcibly take the possession of part of the land for construction of the road. Now after the commissioner report, it appears that a part of the land is purportedly taken for construction of the road, therefore, it becomes incumbent upon the petitioners to cause necessary amendments in the plaint allegations and relief clause. Even if the commissioner report does not reflect acquisition of part of the land of petitioners, even then if petitioners intend to cause necessary amendments then it is imperative that necessary amendments be caused. Reasons assigned by the trial Court in penultimate paragraph cannot be a ground for dismissal of the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Facts would be tested on the anvil of documentary as well as oral evidence. The evidence of plaintiffs has not started yet, therefore, if the amended pleadings are incorporated in the body of plaint then it would not prejudice any of the parties. The respondents would also be at liberty to cause necessary consequential amendments in their written statement in accordance with law.
Resultantly, the petition preferred by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated 19-11-2016 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Petitioners/plaintiffs are directed to appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing and cause 3 W.P.No.8673/2016 necessary amendments in the body of plaint. The respondents would be at liberty to cause consequential amendments. Looking to the pendency of the case for more than 4 years, it is expected from the parties that they would cooperate in early disposal of the case and trial Court would decide the same in accordance with law within a reasonable period.
Petition stands allowed.
(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil*