Hariram vs Surajmal and Others

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order dated 01.04.2013 passed in Civil Suit no. 4-A/2011 by Shri Vikas Bhatele, Second Civil Judge, Class-I, District Vidisha (MP) whereby an application of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner herein for bringing the agreement to sale of 1978 on record, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

From the perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the trial Court was persuaded for the following dual reasons for taking the view contained in the impugned order.

I. The factum of agreement to sale dated 20/07/1978 being not the issue involved in the suit and thus inclusion of the said factum in the pleadings would not be an obstacle in the path of plaintiff to succeed in the civil suit,

II. The suit is of 1988 and is therefore pending since long and allowing of the said application would further delay the suit.

The reason assigned by the Court below appears to be reasonable, as the agreement to sale was executed sometime in 1978, and the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how the inclusion of the said factum of execution of the agreement to sale would be essential for resolving the controversy involved in the suit.

Moreover, the trial has already commenced and therefore as per the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, the court below is well within it''s powers to reject the application to just and proper reasons.

Moreover, the suit is of 1988 Vintage and the attempt on the part of the plaintiff to delay the same further deserves to be deprecated.

This court does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the impugned order as neither the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction under order 6 Rule 17 nor has failed to exercise the same.

The reliance has been placed on the decisions of Kamta Prasad Vs. Sugriv Prasad and Others, Rameshkumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others, and Rajaram Narayan Vs. Rajaram, so as to ventilate the issue involved in the present case. But the facts and circumstances attending the aforesaid cases are distinct than the facts and circumstances attending the instant case as in the present case the suit was pending for more than 25 years and, therefore, due to the said distinguishing factor the said judicial verdicts pressed into service do not render any assistance to the petitioner. This court thus does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the matter in the present petition under Article 227 as the view taken by trial court cannot be said to be so unreasonable as to compel this court to help the petitioner.