Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 721 (MP)

Lalaram v. Rajkumar Mahajan

2016-08-22

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant No.1 has taken exception to the order passed by the trial Court of even date 3.9.2015 dismissing the applications for amendment under Order VI rule 17 CPC filed by the defendant No.1 in the written statement in Civil Suits No.175-A/2015 and 229-A/2013 respectively, pending in the Court of III Additional Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior. Both the suits are filed by the plaintiffs' for specific performance of agreements to sale of the immovable properties as described in the plaints. As per plaint averments, substantial amount of consideration has been passed on to the defendants' but as defendants' chose not to perform their part by registering the sale deeds under the agreements, the aforesaid suits seeking specific performance of the agreements to sale have been filed. 2. In the written statements, plaint allegations are denied inter alia contending that no agreements for sale of the lands in question were ever executed by them. The amount so received by them from the plaintiffs' was towards the loan transaction. There are allegations and counter-allegations as regards the amount paid by the plaintiffs' to the defendants' and denial thereof by the defendants'. While the suits are at the stage of recording plaintiffs' evidence, the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed applications for amendment in the respective suits. Written statements have been proposed to be amended based on the allegations made in the private complaint by the petitioner filed under section 200 CrPC, whereunder cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior by order dated 31.7.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.6835/2015. 3. No reply to the applications filed under Order VI rule 17 CPC were filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. 4. Trial Court by cryptic orders has rejected the applications by order impugned of even date 3.9.2015 without giving any reason or justification for the same. 5. 3. No reply to the applications filed under Order VI rule 17 CPC were filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. 4. Trial Court by cryptic orders has rejected the applications by order impugned of even date 3.9.2015 without giving any reason or justification for the same. 5. During the course of hearing Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners' contend that the facts sought to be placed on record since were based upon cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior vide order dated 31.7.2015 which is subsequent to filing of the written statement on 18.11.2013, the trial Court, in all fairness, ought to have allowed the proposed amendments as the same shall not be hit by the rigour of the proviso to Order VI rule 17 CPC. Hence, the trial Court has committed grave illegality in dismissing the applications for amendment. 6. Per contra, learned senior counsel, Shri Gupta fairly submits that there was no reply filed to the amendment applications. However, he tried to impress upon the Court that the allegations made in the amendment applications are of the period 2005 to 2011 and the same are well within the knowledge of the defendant No.1 at the time of filing the written statement on 18.11.2013. Amendment lacks bona fide and sought to achieve collateral purpose. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Admittedly, there is no reply filed to the amendment applications before the trial Court. Trial Court has rejected the applications by cryptic orders without giving any reasons, much less, justifying rejections. Ex facie, the applications for amendment in the written statement under Order VI rule 17 CPC have been filed pursuant to taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior vide order dated 31.7.2015 (supra). The trial Court, in all fairness, was required to address on the justifiability for rejection of the amendment applications. As there was no reply to the amendment applications, the contentions advanced by learned senior counsel as regards manipulation and falsity of allegations cannot be countenanced at this stage in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Contentions on merits of the amendment shall be subject matter of trial. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there appears to be patent illegality and jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. 9. Contentions on merits of the amendment shall be subject matter of trial. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there appears to be patent illegality and jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. 9. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner/defendant No.1 to amend the written statement on the basis of applications filed under Order VI rule 17 CPC. However, at the same time, the respondent/plaintiff shall be given liberty to amend the plaint. The plaintiff shall be free to incorporate such relevant facts as advised. Both parties shall be permitted to lead evidence in that behalf. 10. As the suit is pending since the year 2013 and more than 3 years' period has passed by, it is considered apposite to direct that the trial Court shall ensure early disposal of the suit preferably within a period of 9 (nine) months provided that both the parties extent full cooperation for early disposal of the suit as promised before this Court. Rajmani Bansal for petitioner; N. K. Gupta with Ravi Gupta for respondent No.1.