SUNIL PATIDAR Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Matter Capture before para no.1.

(2.) THE petitioner before this court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 26 -9 -2014, 14 -10 -2014 and 18 -10 -2014 passed by the trial court. The first order dated 26 -9 -2014 is an order passed on an application preferred under order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Learned counsel has fairly stated before this court that he is not assailing the validity of the order dated 26 -9 -2014. Learned counsel has stated before this court that in light of the order passed in Civil Revision No. 238/2014 dated 07 -05 -2015, no further order as required in respect of the first order dated 26 -09 -2014. The second order is dated 14 -10 -2014. Its an order passed on an application preferred under Order VIII Rule 1A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It has been vehemently argued before this court that the defendant has not filed original copy of the document and, therefore, the trial court could not have allowed the application preferred by the defendant. Order VIII Rule 1A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under : -

(3.) THE facts of the case reveal that the plaintiff came up with a case that he has orally purchased the suit property from the defendant. Such type of sale is un -heard off. Prayer was made in the amendment application by the plaintiff that the documents brought on record by order dated 14 -10 -2014 ie document dated 02 -09 -1997 is forged and fabricated document and his contention is that amendment was rightly preferred as application preferred under Order VIII Rule 1 -A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed on 14 -10 -2014 only. To this, learned counsel for the respondent defendant has drawn the attention of this court towards the written statement filed on 01 -10 -2012 in respect of the counter claim preferred by the defendant (owner). In the written statement filed by the respondents, the respondents have referred to special pleading in respect of documents dated 02 -09 -1997. Meaning thereby the plaintiff was aware about the rent note dated 02 -09 -1997 right from the year 2012 and he has filed an application for amendment in respect of the aforesaid documents after starting of the evidence before the trial court and, therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the amendment application has rightly been turned down by the trial court.