MANGILAL Vs. DAMBARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of plaintiff. The petitioner is questioning the validity of the order dated 4.7.2006 passed by First Civil Judge, Class -I, Neemuch in Civil Suit No. 87/2006. By the order impugned, learned trial Judge has rejected the plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of certain agricultural lands which according to him, has fallen into his share under a family arrangement which took place during the lifetime of his father, the 'Karta' of the joint Hindu family. The respondent who is defendant in the suit is the real brother of plaintiff and according to the plaintiff, since respondent was interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the properties which came to his share, therefore, he filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the material available on the record. From a bare reading of the plaint (Annexure P -1), it is clear that the relief claimed in the suit was confined only to agricultural lands bearing Surveys No. 2877, 2878, 2879 admeasuring 3.32 Hect. of 'Khata' No. 716 and Surveys No. 339, 1210, 1250, 2028, 2874, 2875 and 2876 admeasuring 8.17 Hect. of 'Khata' No. 717. No relief was claimed with respect to the Shop No. 44 situated in the premises of "Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Cant, Neemuch. One of the amendment proposed in the application was in relation to Shop No. 44, as aforesaid. I am of the view that learned trial Court was right in rejecting the said amendment because that would certainly change the nature of the suit, if the plaintiff was allowed to incorporate the amendment in the plaint. However, so far as amendment proposed in relation to the agricultural holdings, as mentioned hereinabove, the amendment does not change the nature of the suit nor it could be said to be belated. No doubt, it is true that after the amendment in the Civil Procedure Code in the year 2002, the amendments in the pleadings should be made at the earliest stage, but there is no embargo to amend the pleadings even if the suit has crossed the stage as contemplated under the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. Even after the amendment. Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is directory not mandatory. Please see (2006) 4 SCC 385, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi and others.