Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 36 (MP)

Bhawar Singh v. Bharatbai

2016-01-12

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard finally with consent. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant in the suit challenging the order of the trial Court dated 24.4.2015 whereby the respondents application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC has been allowed with costs. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application without appreciating that the amendment was sought after the commencement of the trial. 4. As against this, learned counsel for respondents submits that the trial Court has rightly allowed the application and even the consequential amendment in the written-statement has been carried out by the petitioner, therefore, at this stage it is not open to him to challenge the impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the trial Court had taken the documents of the plaintiff respondents on record on 4.9.2014 and thereafter necessity for amending the plaint and incorporating the plea in the plaint on the basis of the documents had arisen and the trial Court by the impugned order, had allowed the application for amendment with cost of Rs.400/-. The application under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC filed by the respondents reveals that the documents were not earlier available with the respondents and on receipt of the documents, the application was filed. That apart, undisputedly the petitioner in response to the amendment in the plaint has carried out the consequential amendment in the written-statement also. 6. Counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment of the supreme Court in the matter of Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan, reported in (2005)13 SCC 89 , wherein the belated amendment was allowed with costs since it was found to be necessary to bring real question in controversy between the parties to the fore and refusal was expected to created needless complication at the stage of the execution on decree of the suit. In the matter of Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd and others, reported in (2008)3 SCC 717 , the amendment after the commencement of the trial was allowed with costs to meet the ends of justice. In the matter of Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd and others, reported in (2008)3 SCC 717 , the amendment after the commencement of the trial was allowed with costs to meet the ends of justice. In the matter of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das, reported in 2008 Laws (SC) 4 page 73, it is held that the amendment not working injustice to the other side and necessary for the purpose of deciding the real question between the parties is to be allowed. In the matter of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu [JT 2002(7) SC 182], it is held that the amendment to avoid multiplicity of litigation can be allowed. In the matter of Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, reported in Laws (SC) 2009(9)45 it is held that necessary amendment with cost can be allowed. That apart, in the present case the application for amendment was allowed when the evidence had not commenced. 7. In these circumstances, the order of the trial Court cannot be faulted on the ground of the judgment in the matter of Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, reported in (2009)2 SCC 409 , and judgment of this Court in the matter of Manoj Jain v. Suman Goyal, reported in 2014(4) MPLJ 143 . The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any patent illegality. 8. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, reported in (2010)9 SCC 385 , while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a Court, or Tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 9. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.