KISHORILAL Vs. HAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is true the plaintiff -petitioner's prayer for amending the plaint and incorporation of para 6 -A therein is allowed. The trial has proceeded accordingly. But, the trial Court has taken the view that the trial cannot proceed due to the fact that in respect of occurrence stated in the amended para 6 -A criminal trial proceeding. A revision was taken against the order of the trial Court and that is confirmed.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the petition appertains to an eviction suit and entitlement of the plaintiff -petitioner is to be adjudged in terms of the statutory provisions. It is not disputed that M.P. Accommodation Control Act applies to the parties and the suit premises. Accordingly, it is to be first decided whether para 6 -A can at all constitute a ground for eviction. Without taking that decision trial Court should not have jumped to the conclusion that there could be an issue framed with respect to the statement made in para 6 -A and therefore, that issue having complexion of a criminal/is trial in the criminal Court must terminate earlier. In our view, the impugned orders of both the Courts below are not sustainable for, the reason aforesaid. We do not pronounce today anything on the question if amended para 6 -A can be a ground for eviction in terms of the provisions of the Act on that first the trial Court shall render its decision on that and when that is done it may accordingly pass fresh order if prayer is renewed for stay of the suit.