Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 18 (MP)

Revat Singh Maravi v. Kamla Prasad Maravi

2023-01-03

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2023
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 7.9.2018 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Mandla, District Mandla in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2016 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint has been rejected on the ground that it is not relevant. 2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that by the proposed application for amendment, the petitioner only wanted to incorporate the new khasra numbers allotted by the revenue authorities. Earlier, the details of the disputed land was given in Scheduled-D of the plaint and the original khasra numbers were changed and new Khasra Nos. 300, 293, 294, 33 and 19 were given. During the pendency of the suit the new numbers have been further renumbered and Khasra No. 300 has been renumbered as 492, Khasra Nos. 293 and 294 have been renumbered as 484, Khasra No. 33 has been renumbered as 64 and Khasra No. 19 has been renumbered as 40. Thus, it is submitted that the proposed amendment was clarificatory in nature and neither it changes the nature of the suit nor it involves introduction of any new facts. 3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondents. It is submitted that since the original khasra numbers of the disputed land are already on record, therefore, the proposed amendment was unnecessary and was unwarranted. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The only amendment which was sought by the petitioner with regard to the renumber given by the revenue authorities to the disputed land. The proposed amendment merely clarifies the factual aspect without any change in nature of suit or introduction of any new disputed property. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has committed a material illegality by rejecting the application on the ground that the proposed amendment is unwarranted and is irrelevant. In fact, by the proposed amendment, the petitioner was intending to place the new/present khasr numbers of the disputed property. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court should have exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. 7. As a result, the order dated 7.9.2018 passed by IInd Civil Judge ClassII, Mandla in Civil Suit No.7-A/2016 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court should have exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. 7. As a result, the order dated 7.9.2018 passed by IInd Civil Judge ClassII, Mandla in Civil Suit No.7-A/2016 is hereby set aside. As a consequence thereof, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. is hereby allowed. 8. Let the amendment be carried out within time so fixed by the trial Court. The respondents, if so advised, may also file their consequential amendment. 9. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.