Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Birla Corporation Ltd. vs Forest Divisional Officer on 10 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-5259-2017
(M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. Vs FOREST DIVISIONAL OFFICER)
Jabalpur, Dated : 10-01-2018
Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Geetesh Singh Tahkur, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents.
Heard.
sh The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated e ad 09/03/2017 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Rewa thereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. Pr a The petitioner has filed a civil suit for compensation. The hy contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner has purchased the ad said land by various sale deeds from private persons. The respondents have filed their written statement stating therein that the land belongs M to the Forest Department. In light of the written statement filed by the of respondents, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amending only prayer clause. The trial Court by the rt impugned order has rejected the said application on the ground that the ou proposed amendment changes nature of the suit. C Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the trial Court has erred in rejecting an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. h ig He submits that the application for amendment has been filed in view H of the allegations made by the respondents in written statement. He relied upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of L.C. Hanumanthappa (since dead) represented by his legal representatives Vs. H.B. Shiva Kumar, reported in (2016) 1 SCC
332. On the basis of which he submits that the amendment can be made in the relief provided that it is not barred by limitation.
On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate supports the impugned order passed by the trial Court. He submits that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court as well as the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of L.C. Hanumanthappa (since dead) represented by his legal representatives (supra), this Court finds that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. In para-29 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has held as under :
"29. Applying the law thus laid down by this Court to the facts of this case, two things become clear.
sh First, in the original written statement itself dated 16th May, e 1990, the defendant had clearly put the plaintiff on notice ad that it had denied the plaintiffâs title to the suit property.
Pr A reading of an isolated para in the written statement, namely, para 2 by the trial court on the facts of this case has a been correctly commented upon adversely by the High hy Court in the judgment under appeal. The original written ad statement read as a whole unmistakably indicates that the M defendant had not accepted the plaintiffâs title. Secondly, while allowing the amendment, the High Court in of its earlier judgment dated 28th March, 2002 had expressly remanded the matter to the trial court, allowing the rt defendant to raise the plea of limitation. There can be no ou doubt that on an application of Khatri Hotels Private Limited C (supra), the right to sue for declaration of title first arose on h the facts of the present case on 16th May, 1990 when the ig original written statement clearly denied the plaintiffâs H title. By 16th May, 1993 therefore a suit based on declaration of title would have become time-barred. It is clear that the doctrine of relation back would not apply to the facts of this case for the reason that the court which allowed the amendment expressly allowed it subject to the plea of limitation, indicating thereby that there are no special or extraordinary circumstances in the present case to warrant the doctrine of relation back applying so that a legal right that had accrued in favour of the defendant should be taken away. This being so, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Thus, in light of the aforesaid judgment, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09/03/2017 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is hereby allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
e sh (MISS VANDANA KASREKAR) ad JUDGE Pr a hy ts ad Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH M Date: 2018.01.10 16:55:59 +05'30' of rt ou C h ig H