SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. OMPRAKSH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court taking exception to the order dated 9/10/15, whereby though the trial Court has allowed his application under Order 7, Rule 14 , Civil Procedure Code taking on record the documents pertaining to earlier suit with regard to the plea of res judicata raised by the defendants in their written statement, yet has rejected the application under Order 6, Rule 17 , Civil Procedure Code for incorporating necessary amendment in the plaint in view of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that suit for eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide requirement is pending consideration. In the written statement filed on 30/8/14, a two-fold plea, amongst others, relating to res judicata and denial of title has been raised by the defendants based on documents referred therein. The trial programme was finalized on 24/8/15. On 25/8/15, petitioner/plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint to deny the plea of res judicata, as well as, seeking eviction on additional ground under section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as a matter of fact, there was no delay much less inordinate delay in filing the amendment application. In view of the pleadings in written statement, it was necessary to amend the plaint. Besides, evidence is yet to commence. Learned counsel also contends that the amendment sought neither can be said to cause any prejudice to the respondent/defendant nor, in any manner, can be construed to change the nature of suit. Instead, the amendment is necessary to do complete justice between the parties.