Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 690 (MP)

Narmadadevi (d) through LRs. v. Hanif Khan

2018-08-08

ANAND PATHAK

body2018
ORDER 1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the trial Court, whereby the application preferred by respondent/defendant under Order VI rule 17 CPC has been allowed. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the respondent in respect of suit property. Initially, respondent filed written statement denying the claim made by the plaintiffs. Later on, with the change of lawyer, an application under Order VI rule 17 CPC was preferred when the evidence of the plaintiffs was started and the said application has been allowed by the trial Court arbitrarily, therefore, petition has been preferred. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court erred in passing the impugned order allowing the amendment application at the instance of defendant. The nature of pleadings sought to be incorporated by the defendant appears to be totally changing the nature of written statement that to when the affidavit under Order XVIII rule 4 CPC has already been filed by the plaintiffs. The said amendment could not have been allowed at such a belated stage. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and submits that at the time of filing of written statement the then Lawyer did not make Narmadadevi (dead) through LRs and ors. v. Hanif Khan the complete pleadings, therefore, with the change of lawyer, the pleadings have been elaborated. There is no arbitrariness caused in amending the written statement. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard. 6. In the present case, the suit for eviction and arrears of rent has been filed by the plaintiffs. Defendant filed the written statement and the affidavit under Order XVIII rule 4 CPC has been preferred by the plaintiffs and matter was placed for evidence. At that time, respondent/defendant sought to amend the written statement which is very extensive in nature because perusal of amendment application indicates that the respondent virtually changed his stand and extensively wants to amend the written statement. The extensive amendment after change of lawyer cannot be sought in view of decision of this Court passed in the matter of Parasram v. Darasram [1997 (1) MPWN 340]. 7. The extensive amendment after change of lawyer cannot be sought in view of decision of this Court passed in the matter of Parasram v. Darasram [1997 (1) MPWN 340]. 7. The case is at the stage of evidence, therefore, in the light of dictum of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Vidyabai and ors. v. Padmalatha and anr. [2009 (3) MPLJ 122], after commencement of trial, amendment cannot be made in normal circumstance. 8. Here the petitioners have submitted their affidavit under Order XVIII rule 4 CPC, therefore, at this stage when the petitioners have opened the evidence by filing affidavit, then such extensive amendment cannot be permitted to be caused in the written statement. 9. In view of above fact situation and legal position, trial Court erred in passing the impugned order and allowing the respondent/defendant to cause amendment in written Narmadadevi (dead) through LRs and ors. v. Hanif Khan statement. 10. Resultantly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2016 petition is allowed and amendment tried to be incorporated by the respondent is directed to be struck off from the pleadings. Trial Court shall proceed thereafter with the earlier written statement. 11. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands allowed and disposed of.