Mani Shankar Shivhare Vs. Smt.Vasulvi - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1046775
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-07-2013
AppellantMani Shankar Shivhare
RespondentSmt.Vasulvi
Excerpt:
w.p. no. 11511 of  2008 7.3.2013 shri vishal dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. none for respondent. respondent   was   noticed   by   registered   acknowledgment  due post on 14.10.2000 in pursuance to order dated 17.9.2000;  the   acknowledgments   were,   however,   no.  received   back;  therefore,   as   per   rule   13   (1)   under   chapter   15   of   madhya  pradesh   high   court   rules,   2008   the   respondent   has   been  treated as to be served. order   dated   8.9.2008   passed   by   civil   judge   class   ii,  hoshangabad in civil suit no. 3­a/2008 is being assailed vide  this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india.   by  impugned order application under order 6 rule 1 and order 8  rule   1;   whereby,   the   petitioner   sought   amendment   in   the  written statement was rejected on the ground of delay. apparent   it   is   from   the   pleadings   that   the   application  seeking   amendment   in   the   written   statement   was   filed  immediately after framing of issues and before parties could led  their   evidence.   and   the   amendment   was   sought   for   bringing  necessary   facts   on   record   for   effective   determination   of  controversy between the parties. in  abdul   rehman   and   another   versus   mohd.   ruldu   and  others :2012 (11) scc 341, it is held: “15. we   reiterate   that   all   amendments   which   are  necessary   for   the   purpose   of   determining   the   real  questions in controversy between the parties should be  allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit.  a   change   in   the   nature   of   relief   claimed   shall   no.  be  considered   as   a   change   in   the   nature   of   suit   and   the  power of amendment should be exercised in the larger  interests of doing full and complete justice between the  parties”. when  the   impugned  order  passed  by  the  trial  court  is  examined on the touchstone of above proponement, this court  is of considered opinion that impugned order deserves to be set  aside.  it is accordingly quashed. applications   filed   by   the   petitioner/defendant   seeking  amendment in the written statement is allowed.   let the same  be   incorporated   within   a   period   of   15   days   from   today.  respondent/plaintiff would be at liberty to seek consequential  amendment in the plaint. petition is allowed to the extent above.  no costs.  (sanjay yadav) judge vivek tripathi
Judgment:

W.P. No. 11511 Of  2008 7.3.2013 Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner.

None for respondent.

Respondent   was   noticed   by   registered   acknowledgment  due post on 14.10.2000 in pursuance to order dated 17.9.2000;  the   acknowledgments   were,   however,   No.  received   back;  therefore,   as   per   Rule   13   (1)   under   Chapter   15   of   Madhya  Pradesh   High   Court   Rules,   2008   the   respondent   has   been  treated as to be served.

Order   dated   8.9.2008   passed   by   Civil   Judge   Class   II,  Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 3­A/2008 is being assailed vide  this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.   By  impugned order application under Order 6 Rule 1 and order 8  Rule   1;   whereby,   the   petitioner   sought   amendment   in   the  written statement was rejected on the ground of delay.

Apparent   it   is   from   the   pleadings   that   the   application  seeking   amendment   in   the   written   statement   was   filed  immediately after framing of issues and before parties could led  their   evidence.

  And   the   amendment   was   sought   for   bringing  necessary   facts   on   record   for   effective   determination   of  controversy between the parties.

In  Abdul   Rehman   and   another   versus   Mohd.

  Ruldu   and  others :2012 (11) SCC 341, it is held: “15.

We   reiterate   that   all   amendments   which   are  necessary   for   the   purpose   of   determining   the   real  questions in controversy between the parties should be  allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit.  A   change   in   the   nature   of   relief   claimed   shall   No.  be  considered   as   a   change   in   the   nature   of   suit   and   the  power of amendment should be exercised in the larger  interests of doing full and complete justice between the  parties”.

When  the   impugned  order  passed  by  the  Trial  Court  is  examined on the touchstone of above proponement, this Court  is of considered opinion that impugned order deserves to be set  aside.  It is accordingly quashed.

Applications   filed   by   the   petitioner/defendant   seeking  amendment in the written statement is allowed.   Let the same  be   incorporated   within   a   period   of   15   days   from   today.  Respondent/plaintiff would be at liberty to seek consequential  amendment in the plaint.

Petition is allowed to the extent above.  No costs.

 (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi