PRAHLADDAS GOYAL Vs. SITARAM AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner defendant has filed this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dtd. 18/3/2021 passed by Sixth Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.41-A of 2017 whereby the application filed by respondent- plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent- plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner- defendant pleading that a four-strayed building was in his ownership and possession situated at Khasgi Bazar Chaurah, Lashkar and he had purchased the said property from Rambabu Khendelwal and others vide sale deed dtd. 1/9/1991. During pendency of the suit, he also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for proposed amendment in the pleadings and the same has been allowed by the trial Court. Hence, this petition.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner- defendant that the trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order dtd. 18/3/2021 whereby the application filed by plaintiff- respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been wrongly allowed. The aforesaid application was filed by the plaintiff at belated stage and proposed amendment made by plaintiff in the pleadings is beyond the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC as the nature of case will change by allowing the amendment application and a new cause of action may arise by allowing the same. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. In support of contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and Others vs. Padmalatha and Others reported in AIR 2009 SC 1433.