Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 211 (MP)

Usha Bai v. Ravishankar Nath

2016-03-10

ALOK ARADHE

body2016
ORDER 1. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 3.9.2015 by which the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Before the evidence in the suit was to be recorded, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff wanted to incorporate the plea that the compromise decree was not effective or legal and was not executable, as the same requires registration under section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly. 3. From perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the proposed amendment is necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the proceeding and would in no manner change the nature of the proceeding. However, the respondents would be at liberty to file an application seeking consequential amendment. 4. It is well settled in law that while deciding the application for amendment, merits of averments cannot be considered and the proposed amendment was necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. It is equally well settled in law that an application for amendment cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay. See: Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and sons and others [ (2009)10 SCC 84 ], and Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh [ (2009)10 SCC 626 ]. In Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and another [ (2008)14 SCC 364 ], 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 further well settled in law that the merit of amendment cannot be looked into at the stage of consideration of application under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, it is evident that the impugned order suffers from the error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, it is quashed. It is further well settled in law that the merit of amendment cannot be looked into at the stage of consideration of application under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, it is evident that the impugned order suffers from the error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, it is quashed. The application under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC, preferred by the petitioner, is allowed. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court by Fax. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.