MUNNE KHAN Vs. BHAGCHAND AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 6.8.2012 passed by Civil Judge, Class -I, Sironj, District Vidisha in case No. 63 -A/2011. Admitted facts between the parties are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff initially filed a suit for declaration, possession and recovery of rent against the defendant. Written statement was filed. Issues were framed and thereafter, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the plaintiff on 4.5.2012. The petitioner/defendant filed reply and opposed the amendment. The Court below allowed the amendment application by impugned order dated 6.8.2012. The Court below opined that under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, plaintiff can abandon any part of relief. It is held that if a larger relief is claimed and a portion thereof is abandoned, no prejudice would be caused to the other side.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the amendment application was not maintainable because it was filed after commencement of the trial. No 'due diligence' was shown and established by the plaintiff. Necessary ingredients of Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. were not satisfied and Court has mechanically allowed the amendment application.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.