W.P. No. 4555/2014. Case: Purshottam Rathore Vs Sonu. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 4555/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: H.K. Shukla, Advocate |
| Judges | Rohit Arya, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VI Rule 17; Constitution of India - Article 227 |
| Judgement Date | August 11, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
Rohit Arya, J.
-
Heard.
-
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by plaintiff is directed against the order dated 21/07/2014 passed in civil suit No. 18A/2013 by III Civil Judge, Class-II, Guna District Guna. By the aforesaid order, an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.
-
Plaintiff has filed suit for eviction against the defendant', inter alia contending that after death of his father on 05/11/1997, he has succeeded to the suit property by virtue of being legal heir, on grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need as envisaged under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
-
Defendant has filed written statement and denied plaint allegations. It is also denied that suit property is of the ownership of plaintiff.
-
On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Plaintiff has examined the witnesses and case was fixed for cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses. As such, the trial has commenced. After trial being at the advanced stage, plaintiff filed the instant application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to bring on record that he has succeeded to the suit property by virtue of registered 'will'.
-
Trial Court while addressing upon the aforesaid application has found that the plaintiff has not explained the circumstances in the facts and circumstances of the case which prevented him from bringing on record the 'will' at the time of filing of the suit or before the trial had commenced as the fact sought to be brought on record is one which was very much available and within knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit and the proposed amendment is not based upon subsequent event. Therefore, trial Court while addressing upon the jurisdictional facts as to whether in spite of due diligence, plaintiff could not bring the proposed amendment before commencement of trial, the trial Court was not satisfied as regards belatedly amendment sought to be brought on record. More over, objection in that behalf was taken by the defendant as far as back on 10/01/2014 and the proposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial