JANTANTRA SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI MARYADIT Vs. HARICHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the XVIth Additional District Judge, Bhopal Case No. 461-A/2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the plaint, as also an application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 of CPC for bringing certain documents on record has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract against the respondent No. 1 on the basis of an agreement executed by him. Initially the suit was filed by the society through President R.K.Bajpai, but subsequently due to his illness, he was replaced by his son Vijay Kumar Bajpai. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit the respondent No. 1 sold the disputed property to the respondent No. 4, hence the respondent No. 4 was also joined in the array of the defendants and the sale deed executed in his favour has also been challenged by the petitioner. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner also came to know that the respondents No. 1 and 4 were convicted by the competent Court and have been sentenced to three years RI on the ground that forged ceiling permission was obtained by them for the alienation of the disputed property, this order of conviction was also sought to be brought on record under Order 7, Rule 14 of CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has received the aforesaid document on 17.11.2017 and thereafter has filed amendment application on 22.11.2017. It is submitted that by way of amendment application, the petitioner has sought to make short amendments which are in the nature of minor corrections in the plaint that the "plaintiff is willing to perform his part of the contract". It is further submitted that since the respondents did not file any reply to the aforesaid application, hence on the grounds mentioned in the application, the same ought to have been allowed.

(3.) It is further submitted that the petitioner does not want to reopen the case and does not want to lead any further evidence in support of his amendment, hence no prejudice would be caused to the respondents even at the present stage of the civil suit. Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madamanchi Ramappa and another v. Muthaluru Bojjappa reported in AIR 1963 SC 1633 to support his contention that the certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in this petition and has submitted that the petitioner had filed the civil suit around 29 years ago and application has been filed with an ulterior motive, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.