RAMBABU BHAGEL Vs. SHRIKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra-ordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/plaintiff has called in question the defensibility and tenability of the order dated 29th June, 2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Bhind in Civil Suit No. 21-A of 2009, by which his application filed under Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC, has been dismissed and the suit filed by the plaintiff has also been dismissed.

(2.) SHRI K.B. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 13th May, 2010. Thereafter, on 29th June, 2010, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC, on the ground that the amendment could not be carried out in the plaint due to sad demise of a family member of the Counsel for the plaintiff and thereafter Courts were closed for summer vacation from 14th May, 2010 to 18th June, 2010 and, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in carrying out the amendment as well as to permit him to incorporate the amendment in the plaint but the learned Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction and not only dismissed the application under Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC but also dismissed the suit itself, therefore, learned Trial Court committed an illegality in passing the impugned order.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents/defendants in support of his contention has relied upon the decisions in the case of Shantibai Vs. Chokhelal, 1976 JLJ 12, rendered by a Full Bench and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madanlal Kanhaiyalal Vs. Jai Narayan Gendalal, 1971 JLJ 693.