CHIMANLAL DAGA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the refusal for allowing amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 by the impugned order dtd. 8/11/2025 Annexure P-7 wherein the plaintiffs/petitioners have proposed amendment that after para 10.4 to incorporate the fact that they are in possession of the disputed property on the basis of the document which was filed with application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC and which has been allowed by the same order.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that RCSA No.200-A/2019 was filed by the plaintiffs for relief of declaration and injunction that the suit was decreed ex-parte and when this ex-parte decree was challenged in appeal before this Court, this Court vide order dtd. 25/1/2019 remanded the case for affording opportunity of hearing to the opposite side and thereafter decide the case on merits. He further submits that to resolve the controversy in dispute two applications one under Order 7 Rule 14(3) and another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC were filed to incorporate amendment that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and document filed along with application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) was filed in proof thereof. The application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC has been allowed by the same order, whereas the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed. This amendment is necessary to resolve the controversy in dispute therefore, the Court below has committed error in refusing to allow the proposed amendment in the plaint. On these submissions prays for allowing this petition and setting aside the impugned order and allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for incorporating necessary proposed amendment in the plaint.

(3.) Heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.