Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 915 (MP)

Parmanand Bandil v. Saroj Devi

2006-07-27

P.K.JAISWAL

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order dated 12.5.2001 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class I, Morena, in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2001, whereby trial Court rejected the application for amendment filed by the petitioner (defendant). 2. The respondents are predecessors-in-title of late Shri Chandrabhan Gupta who filed a suit for ejectment under section 12(1)(a), (c) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short "the Act") against the petitioner. During the pendency of the civil suit, Shri Chandrabhan Gupta died. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of written statement on the ground that suit has been filed by Chandrabhan Gupta for bona fide need of his son Rakesh Kumar who is doing business at Agra and during pendency of the suit Chandrabhan Gupta died and after death of Chandrabhan Gupta, the bonafide need of the plaintiffs have come to an end. During pendency of the suit, Rambabu, one of the brothers of late Shri Chandrabhan Gupta, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC which was rejected by trial Court on 8.4.2006. Thereafter Writ Petition No.2164/2001 was filed before this Court which was also dismissed by this Court and order passed by the trial Court on 8.4.2006 was affirmed. After rejection of the application, the petitioner sought amendment in the written statement to the effect that Rambabu Gupta is one of the co-owners and he raised an objection regarding ownership of the suit property, without consent of all the co-owners the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is also averred that after death of Chandrabhan, his son Rakesh Kumar became owner of Laxmi Lodge and now he is not unemployed and his need comes to an end. 3. The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the petitioner has already in para 12 of his written statement taken a plea that bona fide need of Rakesh Kumar is not genuine and he is not unemployed and he is carrying his business at Agra and Morena, and therefore, the amendment as proposed in para 15 of the written statement is not necessary. In respect of the proposed amendment in para 16 by which the petitioner wants to raise a plea regarding maintainability of the suit, learned trial Court held that one of the co-owners filed an application for impleadment and his application was rejected and therefore, it is not proper to allow the amendment. With the above ground, application for amendment was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial Court committed error in rejecting the application. During pendency of the suit Chandrabhan Gupta died which is a subsequent event and thereafter only after death of original plaintiff he submits that bona fide need of Rakesh Kumar came to an end and in respect of objection regarding maintainability of the suit, as one of the co-owners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC which was rejected and thereafter he filed an application for amendment, and therefore, amendment is nothing but a subsequent event and petitioner came to know during pendency of the suit and the suit is at a preliminary stage and therefore, trial Court committed legal error in rejecting the application. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner is delaying the proceedings before the trial Court and therefore, application is filed and there is also direction for deciding the matter expeditiously. 6. All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In the present case, application for amendment of written statement was moved on the basis of facts coming to the light when Chandrabhan died and application of one of the co-owners for his impleadment was rejected. The amendment would not result in changing the nature and character of suit nor enlarge scope of litigation. The said application was not liable to be rejected especially when suit is at initial stage and a liberal approach is to be adopted in considering prayers for amendment of pleadings. 7. The trial Court, without considering the came, passed the impugned order rejecting the application. The proposed amendment is nothing but a subsequent event and therefore, the amendment application should not be rejected. 8. 7. The trial Court, without considering the came, passed the impugned order rejecting the application. The proposed amendment is nothing but a subsequent event and therefore, the amendment application should not be rejected. 8. In view of the above, the trial Court committed legal error in rejecting the application and therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The application for amendment is allowed. In result the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, but without any order as to costs.