MANORMA AGARWAL (SMT.) Vs. RAMKUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Court of 8th Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior, whereby the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as was filed by the defendant-tenant-respondent, has been allowed after commencement of the trial on the ground that the defendant-tenant-respondent had informed this ground about lack of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also about the fact that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property, but earlier counsel had not mentioned such things in the written statement, and when he was questioned, he had submitted that he is filing only a short reply and since the defendant-tenant was not knowing legal intricacies, therefore, he could not mention all the issues, which have been raised now through the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Proviso below to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, such amendment could not have been allowed after commencement of the trial as there is a specific bar on allowing such kind of the amendment. It is also submitted that change of the counsel is not a ground for amending the pleadings. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Parasram v. Darasram as reported in 1997 (1) MPWN 234 , wherein extensive amendment was sought after change of Lawyer and the amendment was refused and the order of the trial Court was upheld by this High Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the defendant-tenant is not a law knowing person and if his trust has been misplaced by the earlier counsel, then he should not be made to suffer. He further submits that in fact the impugned order gives an additional ground in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff should not be disfavoured about allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC.