PURUSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL Vs. MOHAN KHETAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court u/Art. 227 of Constitution is invoked assailing the dismissal of an application preferred by the plaintiff u/O VI Rule 17 CPC, vide order dated 30/4/2019, P/1 passed in civil suit No. 48-A/2014 by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Gwalior (M.P.) on the ground of failure of plaintiff to show due diligence and for adopting delaying tactics.

(2.) In a suit for mandatory injunction pending at the stage of adducing of evidence of plaintiff, an application u/O VI Rule 17 CPC was moved by the plaintiff. Prayer was made that in view of allowing of an application u/O 7 Rule 14(3) CPC of the plaintiff allowing bringing decree dated 1/12/2015 on record passed in civil suit 43-A/2013 (Purushottamdas Agrawal Vs. Mohanlal Khetan) the consequential pleadings be allowed to be introduced in the plaint by way of amendment. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff that once the trial court allowed the documents to be brought on record by invoking Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, which forms the subject matter of the amendment proposed by the plaintiff, the trial court ought to have allowed the application u/O VI Rule 17 CPC instead of rejecting the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant on the other hand inviting attention of this court to the prayer clause to the plaint vide P/2 submits that a decree has been sought by the plaintiff of mandatory injunction against defendant No.1/respondent No.1 herein that respondent No.1 be restrained by way of direction from depositing the rent of the accommodation in question to the defendant No.2 [respondent No. 2(A) & 2 (B) herein] of Rs. 3,000/- per month and instead deposit the same with the trial court.