Mohan Vs. Ram Das

Mohan vs Ram Das

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 16, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1046701

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1046701
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Aug 16, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohan

Advocate Shri. Jain

Respondent

Ram Das

Excerpt

.....of india, the petitioners who are plaintiffs, are seeking quashment of order dated 07.09.2012 (annexure-p/1) passed by learned civil judge class-ii bada malhara, district chhatarpur in civil suit no.4-a/2010 by which their application under order vi rule 17 of cpc has been dismissed.2. a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of certain agricultural land has been filed by the plaintiffs on the averment that they are in possession of the disputed property. however, in the written-statement specifically it has been pleaded by respondents/defendants that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. eventually an application has been submitted by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint that in case their possession is not found the relief of possession be also passed in their favour.3. the contention of shri jain, learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the application to amend the plaint is allowed 3 w.p. no.16014/2012 the nature of suit will not be changed. however, shri mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents-defendants submitted that entire evidence of defendants is over and the case is fixed for pronouncement of judgment.4. according to me, since from the very beginning the defendants have raised the plea that the plaintiffs are not in possession, therefore, if such an application is filed, true, the same is filed in order to meet out the objection raised by the defendants in the written-statement but if the suit of plaintiffs is otherwise found to be proved merely on this technical ground their suit may not be dismissed, therefore, their amendment application is allowed on payment of cost of rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) by the plaintiffs which will be deposited on or before 30.09.2013. the petitioners shall be free to amend their plaint only after they deposit the amount of cost in the trial court. the amount of cost which shall be deposited by the petitioners-plaintiffs may be withdrawn by the defendants. the.....

Full Judgment

1 W.P. No.16014/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA Writ Petition No.16014 / 2012 PETITIONERS :

1. Mohan S/o. Govinda Lodhi R/o. Village Bandha, Tehsil Ghuwara, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) 2. Lad Kunwar W/o. Khanju Lodhi, R/o. Village Bandha, Tehsil Ghuwara, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENTS:

1. Ram Das, S/o. Mathura Lodhi, 2. a. Shantibai Wd/o Ramlal b.Balchand S/o. Ramlal c.Rampal S/o. Ramlal d.Meerabai d/o. Ramlal e.Mamtabair d/o Ramlal 3. Mansukha S/o. Himmat Lodhi 4. Hardas, S/o. Himmat Lodhi, 5. Imratlal S/o. Param Lodhi 6. Bahadur, S/o. Param Lodhi, 7. Shivraj S/o. Imrat Lodhi, 8. Mahendra S/o. Bahadur Lodhi, All R/o. Village Bandha, Tehsil Ghuwara, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) 2 W.P. No.16014/2012 9. State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector District Chhatarpur --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioners by Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate. Respondents No.1 to 8 by Shri A.D. Mishra, Advocate. Respondent no.9 by Smt. Sheetal Dubey, Government Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER

(16.08.2013) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are plaintiffs, are seeking quashment of order dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure-P/1) passed by learned Civil Judge Class-II Bada Malhara, District Chhatarpur in Civil Suit No.4-A/2010 by which their application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed.

2. A suit for declaration and injunction in respect of certain agricultural land has been filed by the plaintiffs on the averment that they are in possession of the disputed property. However, in the written-statement specifically it has been pleaded by respondents/defendants that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. Eventually an application has been submitted by the plaintiffs to amend the plaint that in case their possession is not found the relief of possession be also passed in their favour.

3. The contention of Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the application to amend the plaint is allowed 3 W.P. No.16014/2012 the nature of suit will not be changed. However, Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents-defendants submitted that entire evidence of defendants is over and the case is fixed for pronouncement of judgment.

4. According to me, since from the very beginning the defendants have raised the plea that the plaintiffs are not in possession, therefore, if such an application is filed, true, the same is filed in order to meet out the objection raised by the defendants in the written-statement but if the suit of plaintiffs is otherwise found to be proved merely on this technical ground their suit may not be dismissed, therefore, their amendment application is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) by the plaintiffs which will be deposited on or before 30.09.2013. The petitioners shall be free to amend their plaint only after they deposit the amount of cost in the Trial Court. The amount of cost which shall be deposited by the petitioners-plaintiffs may be withdrawn by the defendants. The defendants-respondents shall be free to file necessary application to amend the written-statement that the relief of possession has not become time-barred. If such an application is filed, in consequence of the amendment application, learned Trial Court shall consider that application and may allow the same. It is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any view 4 W.P. No.16014/2012 whether relief of possession which has been sought by plaintiffs is not time barred and in that regard learned Trial Court is absolutely free to give its findings on the basis of evidence.

5. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed as indicated above. The impugned order dated 7.9.2012 is set aside and the amendment application of petitioners-plaintiffs is allowed. No costs so far as this petition is concerned. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge 16.08.2013 SS

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Mohan vs Ram Das Same Subject Education