GANPAT DAS vs ARTIDAS

The present petition is against the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the

application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed on the ground that if the amendment is allowed, it may change

the nature of the suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a suit was filed in the year 2013 for declaration and confirmation of possession. Further during

the pendency of the suit, defendants No.1 to 4 have executed a sale deed in favour of defendant/respondents No.6 to 8 by a sale deed dated

30.05.2016, and newly added respondents were already made a party by allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. He would further submit

that the sale deed dated 30.05.2016, which is on record, cancellation of the same has been sought for by amendment, therefore, it would not change

the nature of the suit, as such the said application deserves to be allowed.

Perused the order. The order is cryptic and without any reason and the only reason assigned that it will change nature of the suit. This Court did not

appreciate the fact that when the purchasers who have been made a party were arrayed as defendants on the basis of sale deed dated 30.05.2016, if

such facts are required to be pleaded in the plaint, how it will change the nature of the suit. On the other hand, if such averments are not on record,

the plaintiffs would be precluded to lead any evidence on that.

Consequently, the order dated 21.07.2017, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed, is set aside. The application under

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed. Let necessary amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of production of this order.

With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.