[Order VI Rule 17 CPC] Only Pleadings Proposed Should Be Considered In Amendment Application, Not Merits Of Proposed Amendment: MP High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court has underscored that the merits of the proposed amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC must not be taken into consideration by the trial court. The amendment application should be allowed by examining the proposed pleadings alone, the court clarified.

The single judge bench of Justice Pranay Verma also added that the amendment sought in the written statement by the petitioner, who is the defendant in the eviction suit, is based on subsequent events. However, the trial court rejected the amendment application by citing that the pleadings were not adequately substantiated by the photographs produced along with it.

The bench sitting at Indore strongly disagreed with the manner in which the trial court carried out the above exercise of adjudicating the amendment application.

“…In the present case, defendant has pleaded acquisition and occupation of alternate accommodation by plaintiffs during pendency of the suit…. The proposed pleading in my opinion was not required to be proved by evidence at the present stage which would be a matter of evidence…”, the court observed.

After analysing the pleadings, the single-judge bench found it just and necessary to allow the amendment application earlier dismissed by the civil judge at Indore.

The suit was originally filed by the respondents for eviction of the tenant-petitioner on the grounds of bona fide need. The case was fixed for defence evidence when subsequent developments allegedly occurred. According to the defendant/petitioner, the respondents have acquired alternate accommodation from where they have been operating their business, as mentioned in the application for amendment of Written Statement.

“…Even though applications of defendant for amendment in the written statement have been allowed as well as rejected earlier but that is not a ground which has been taken by the trial Court for rejection of the application of the defendant…”, the court further noted while allowing the petition filed under Article 227.

Since the eviction suit has been pending since 2015, the court has asked the trial court to make all efforts in order to conclude the trial within a time period of three months.

Advocate Jayesh Gurnani appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Krishnapal Singh Khichi represented the respondents.

Case Title: Prakash Kodwani v. Smt. Vimla Devi Lakhwani & Ors.

Case No: Misc. Petition No. 4763 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 53

Click Here To Read/ Download Order