Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Shakuntala Bai vs Chaganlal Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 1 August, 2013
Author: A.K. Shrivastava
Bench: A.K. Shrivastava
1
W.P. 17921/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH:
Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava
Writ Petition No.17921 of 2012
PETITIONERS : 1. Smt. Shakuntala Bai, Wd/o
Radheshyam Singhal, R/o
Balkunth Nagar Colony, Khandwa,
M.P.
2. Rajkumar alias Raju, R/o Sumitra
Colony, Behind Subhash High
School,Khandwa, Tahsil and
District Khandwa, M.P.
3. Satish, R/o Budhwara Bazar,
Khandwa, Tahsil and District
Khandwa, M.P.
4. Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, R/o
Budhwara Bazar, Khandwa, Tahsil
and District Khandwa, M.P.
5. Sudesh Kumar, R/o Balkunth
Nagar Colony, Khandwa, M.P.
Petitioners no.2 to 5 S/o
Radheshyam Agrawal Singhal.
Versus
RESPONDENTS: 1. Chaganlal, S/o Babulal Arora, R/o
Budhwara Bazar, Khandwa, Tahsil
and District Khandwa, M.P.
2. Smt. Sau. Sumitra alias Sau., W/o.
Deep Kali Agrawal, R/o. Mohalla
Near Bada Bazar, Hanuman
Mandir, Sehore, M.P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners by - Shri Avinash Zargar, Advocate
Respondents by - Shri Sanjay Sarwate, Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 01/08/2013) 2 W.P. 17921/2012 This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed at the instance of the petitioners/defendants whose application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been rejected by the trial Court.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that a suit for eviction on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 on the grounds envisaged under Section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation and Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act of 1961). The suit is pending in the trial Court. In the meantime the defendants amended their written-statement and in consequence to it the plaintiff/respondent no.1 submitted an application to amend the plaint by way of consequential amendment. This application was allowed and eventually the plaintiff amended the plaint. Thereafter, an application to amend the written-statement was filed by the defendants which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.10.2012, hence this petition has been filed.
3. The contention of Shri Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants is that by labelling the amendment to be consequential amendment, indeed the plaintiff has pleaded three new facts as a result of which it became necessary for the defendants to amend their written-statement, therefore, the 3 W.P. 17921/2012 application was filed which has been illegally rejected by the learned trial Court.
4. On the other hand Shri Sarwate, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent no.1 argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the proposed amendment which has been sought by the defendants is nothing but repetition of the facts which they have already been pleaded and, therefore, rightly the application has been rejected by the learned trial Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the defendants/ petitioners is that under the garb of consequential amendment certain new facts have been pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 although this has been refuted by learned counsel for the plaintiff. Be that as it may, since the stay order was passed by this Court staying the further proceedings and further that no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff if the proposed amendment sought by the defendants is allowed and the nature of the suit will also not be changed, I am of the view that the application filed by the defendants ought to have been allowed. In this regard I may profitably place reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (dead) by LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511.
4W.P. 17921/2012
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 09.10.2012 is set aside and the application of defendants is hereby allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) which shall be deposited by the defendants on or before 31.8.2013 in the trial Court. The amendment shall be carried out in the written-statement only after the defendants/petitioners deposit the amount of cost in the trial Court. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 shall be free to withdraw the amount of cost. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court is hereby directed to decide the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.
8. This petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
(A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao 5 W.P. 17921/2012