Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harjeet Kaur vs Parvinder Kaur on 26 August, 2015
WP-13704-2012
(HARJEET KAUR Vs PARVINDER KAUR)
26-08-2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Heard.
In this writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners, inter-alia, have challenged the validity of the order dated
27.07.2012 passed by the trial Court by which the application for
amendment filed by the petitioners, has been rejected.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the record it is
evident that the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking relief of Specific
Performance of Contract. By the proposed manner, the petitioners
wanted to incorporate the amendment in which the suit property
devolved on the respondent No.1. A plea was also sought to be
incorporated that the respondent No.1 is an habitual offender and obtained the property by misrepresentation. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the same is not relevant and has been filed belatedly. It is well settled in law that an amendment which is necessary for determination of real question in controversy should be allowed. If the other side can be compensated by cost and when no injustice is caused to the either side in such a case, the amendment should be allowed. [See: Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84]. In Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh, 2009 (10) SCC 626, it has been held that an application for amendment should not be rejected merely on the ground of delay. It has been held that amendment which is proper amendment can be introduced at any stage for the purpose of determining the controversy involved in the suit. It is equally well settled in law that the merit of amendment cannot be looked into at the stage of consideration of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The trial Court passed the order in contravention of the aforesaid well settled legal position. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred Only) by way of cost before the trial Court within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The aforesaid amount shall be payable to the respondent No.1.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) JUDGE