SUMATI JAIN Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dtd. 12/9/2024 passed by the First District Judge, Shivpuri/Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.RCA/23 of 2023 whereby two applications; one under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and another under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC preferred by the respondent/appellant were allowed and he was permitted to carry out the amendment in the plaint as well as was allowed to bring certain documents on record.

(2.) Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners, who are respondents in the appeal, has submitted that the said order is per se illegal, as the applications preferred by the present respondent/appellant could only have been considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits and not otherwise, thus is de-hors the settled principle of law as enunciated by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the various pronouncements and therefore, liable to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to the orders passed by this Court in the matters of Khemchand Mulchand vs. Govt. of M.P., Bhopal reported in 1972 MPLJ 524; Suresh Prasad & Others vs. Ram Krishna & Others reported in 2002 (3) M.P.L.J. 208; Betu Lal Lodhi vs. Mst. Maharaniya Lodhi reported in 2023 (II) MPWN 29 as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Another reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148, has contended that any application preferred alongwith the appeal either it may be under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC or under Sec. 151 of CPC (though it should have been under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC) is required to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance or bearing on the issues involved and not otherwise.