Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 423 (MP)

Shehsmani v. Amarjeet

2020-03-16

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2020
ORDER : Shri Udai Raj Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.01.2020 (Annexure-P/5) whereby the Court below in a pending civil suit passed an order deciding the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 3. The application has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that the proposed amendment was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and it is further observed that the plaintiff has not disclosed, as to from when the defendants tried to dispossess him and interrupted in his possession. The Court below has observed that the case is fixed for recording of defendants' evidence and the amendment which is sought and the facts proposed to be brought on record are already in the knowledge of the plaintiff and even otherwise it is not disclosed as to on what date such cause of action arose, therefore, that amendment is not required to be allowed. 4. I have perused the order and also the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. In the application, it is proposed that the defendants are trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and it has become difficult for him to cultivate the land. It is further stated hat if for any reason, it is found that the plaintiff is not in possession of the land then the decree of possession be also passed. 5. From a perusal of the amendment proposed, it is clear that no cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, therefore, in anticipation that the plaintiff could be dispossessed by the defendants, asking for a decree of possession cannot be said to be proper. If he is dispossessed then it is obligatory for him to disclose the date on which dispossession is done so as to determine the limitation of the particular relief. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below while rejecting the application of the plaintiff/petitioner. Since no interference is warranted in the order impugned, the petition is hereby dismissed.