Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 209 (MP)

Munna Lal v. Ram Kumar

2019-03-07

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 6.8.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Gohad, District Bhind in Civil Suit No. 135A/2011, by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI rule 17 CPC for amendment in written statement has been rejected. 2. As per the office report, respondents No. 1 to 14 have refused to accept the notices, accordingly, the office has treated the said notices as served as per the provisions of Order V rule 9 and 9 (iii) CPC. 3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that respondents No. 1 to 14 have filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction in respect of survey No. 2730 admeasuring 0.66 hectare situated in village Chharenta (Karvas), Pargana Gohad, District Bhind. The petitioners filed written statement on 17.4.2012. Thereafter, issues were framed and before the affidavit under Order XVIII rule 4 CPC could be filed, the petitioners filed an application for amendment in the written statement clarifying the pleadings made in the written statement. The trial Court has rejected the said application on the ground that the pleadings sought to be incorporated by the amendment are vague and no document has filed in support of the said pleadings. It was further observed that the petitioner has not tried to incorporate any fact which was not within their knowledge on the date of filing of the written statement and, accordingly, the application was rejected. 4. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the application was not filed belatedly. The suit was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 14 on 23.11.2011. The petitioner filed his written statement on 17.4.2012 and the application for amendment was filed on 25.7.2012, i.e. just three months after filing of the written statement. Although it is fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioners that the issues were framed prior to filing of the application for amendment, however, it is submitted that no affidavit under Order XVIII rule 4 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs. 5. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 6. This Court has gone through the written statement as well as the application for amendment. 5. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 6. This Court has gone through the written statement as well as the application for amendment. The contents of the application for amendment can be said to be clarificatory in nature to the facts already pleaded by the petitioners in their written statement. It is well established principle of law that the Court should adopt a liberal approach instead of hyper-technical approach in allowing an amendment. The amendment seeking to introduce facts in support of the contentions already pleaded is permissible. The Supreme Court in the case of N.C. Bansal v. UP Financial Corporation and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 347 has held as under : "16. We have perused the pleadings and also the two applications under consideration filed by the appellant. In our considered opinion, both the applications filed by the appellant-plaintiff should have been allowed and he should have been permitted to amend the plaint and file the additional documents. 17. It is for the reason that firstly, the suit is still at the initial stage i.e. the trial has not yet begun; second, the proposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of the suit; third, the applications could not be said to have been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been dismissed by the trial Court as not maintainable in its initial stages and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is only after the appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court for its trial, the appellant-plaintiff filed the applications in the suit and sought permission to amend the plaint and file certain documents in support thereof; fourth, the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment." The Supreme Court in the case of Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited v. Manohar Lal, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 212 has held as under : "13. The principle applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the pleadings remains no more res integra and is laid down in several cases. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, this Court, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following principle in para 63 of the judgment which reads as under: (SCC p. 102) "63. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, this Court, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following principle in para 63 of the judgment which reads as under: (SCC p. 102) "63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment : (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 7. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has committed a material illegality by rejecting the application filed under Order VI rule 17 CPC. Accordingly, the order dated 6.8.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Gohad, District Bhind in Civil Suit No.135A/2011 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the petitioners under Order VI rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement is allowed. The amendment be carried out within the time to be fixed by the trial Court. 8. This Court by order dated 17.9.2012 had stayed the further proceedings. The said order is also hereby vacated. 9. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of.