Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Asha Fauzdar vs Suresh Chandra Fauzdar (Deceased) 67 ... on 3 April, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16136
1 MP-3846-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 3 rd OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3846 of 2024
SMT. ASHA FAUZDAR AND OTHERS
Versus
SURESH CHANDRA FAUZDAR (DECEASED) 67 YEARS THROUGH
LRS A. VARUN FAUZDAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Tulika Gulatee - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
This misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs challenging the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by First District Judge, Narmadapuram, in RCSA No.25/2012 whereby trial Court has dismissed petitioners' application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed at the stage of final arguments.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that mistakenly in the civil suit, one house property admeasuring 4800 sq.ft. situated in Shanichara Mohalla, Hoshangabad bearing plot nos.163 & 164 was left from mentioning in the plaint however, evidence has already been led in that regard by way of producing Khasra entry (Ex.P/13) showing the property to be standing in the name of Gulab Chand, who is common ancestor of the parties. She submits that the application has been dismissed only on the ground of delay, which is not permissible in the light of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATTYENDAR NAGDEVE Signing time: 04-04-2025 11:47:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16136 2 MP-3846-2024 Limited and Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 , as well as by coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Shri Krishna Mandir Public Trust Hoshangabad vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others in Misc. Petition No.1119 of 2023 decided on 24.09.2024 and in the case of Bholanath vs. Kamlesh Gupta and others 2015 (4) M.P.L.J. 328. She further submits that because evidence has already been led by the plaintiffs in respect of the aforesaid left out property also, therefore, the petitioners do not want to lead any evidence in that regard and the case can be decided only by incorporating the pleadings. With these submissions she prays for allowing of the misc. petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
4. As per chronology of events, the instant suit had been filed in the year 2012 and the application proposing amendment in the plaint has been filed on 15.07.2024, undisputedly at the stage of final arguments, which has been dismissed by trial Court.
5. Although, it is settled law that amendment can not be rejected merely on the ground of delay but, in the present case, the petitioners in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, have not shown any justifiable reason not to file the application at previous occasion and if the application is allowed at the stage of final arguments, entire case shall be reopened. Further it is apparent from the written statement, that the defendants are denying the claim of petitioners/plaintiffs since beginning and the plaintiffs have proposed amendment after a period of about 12 years.
6. As such, this Court in the limited scope of Article 227 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATTYENDAR NAGDEVE Signing time: 04-04-2025 11:47:38 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16136 3 MP-3846-2024 Constitution of India, does not find any case of interference in the impugned order passed by trial Court rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
7. Resultantly, this misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE SN Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATTYENDAR NAGDEVE Signing time: 04-04-2025 11:47:38