SAROJ DEVI Vs. PARMANAND BANDIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the trial court by which an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the respondent has been allowed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that a suit for eviction was filed by the petitioners on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 in the year 2003. After completion of the evidence of the plaintiff, the respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. in which inter alia it was pleaded that the adjoining shop has been let out admeasuring 4 feet in width by the plaintiffs and therefore, the need of the plaintiff has come to an end. The petitioners filed reply in which inter alia it was pointed out that an application for amendment has been filed by way of dilatory tactic and infact the accommodation which is allegedly shown is situated inside the passage of the house of the petitioners. The factum of existence of shop the shop itself was denied. The trial Court vide impugned order has allowed the application for amendment inter alia on the ground that the application for amendment should be dealt with liberally.

(3.) The suit was admittedly filed in the year 2003. In WP No. 5888/2012 this Court had directed the trial court to decide the suit within a period of one year. However, despite the directions issued by this Court, the suit was not concluded within a period of one year. It is also pertinent to mention here that similar application was filed by another tenant against the plaintiffs in another suit which was rejected by the trial court by order dated 14.01.2015 and aforesaid order has been upheld by this court in WP No. 444/2015.