Shivshankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2018
At the outset, this Court as a matter of fact does not see any
jurisdictional error or the illegality in the order impugned.
Nevertheless, one cannot lose sight of the fact except carrying out the
amendment beyond the stipulated period in the order dated
01.12.2016, the plaintiff has not committed any act tantamounting to
judicial indiscipline warranting closure of his right to evidence and,
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.27/2017 (Shivshankar vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
3
therefore, in the fitness of things, it is desirable that amendment so
carried out by the plaintiff may be taken into consideration allowing
the plaintiff to substitute the amendment, of course, with costs which
this Court quantified at Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five
Hundred Only) which shall be deposited on or before the next date
fixed in the suit. As a consequence thereof, this Court is inclined to
allow the plaintiff to lead evidence in a time bound program to be
scheduled by the trial Court. Any intentional avoidance in recording
of evidence by the plaintiff shall in no circumstance be condoned and
trial Court shall proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with
program so fixed. To strike balance between the parties, it is ordered
that both parties shall file an application for expeditious disposal of
the suit which shall be decided by the trial Court in accordance with
law.