Munni Bai vs Ram Dulari

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order dated 01.04.2014 in civil suit no. 76A/2013 passed by Civil Judge, Class II Gwalior whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by the plaintiff/respondent herein has been allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC at the stage when the trial had commenced without recording any findings despite exercise of due diligence, the plaintiff could not seek the amendment before the commencement of trial.

A close scrutiny of the impugned order indicates that the plaintiff wanted to bring on record, the plaint map, but on account of inadvertence, could not do so earlier. The trial Court further recorded the findings that though the said amendment could have been brought forth earlier, but since the Court found that the said amendment shall not change the basic nature of suit and would be helpful in adjudication of the matter, the amendment sought by the plaintiff was allowed.

The aspect of exercise of due diligence has been taken care of by the trial Court by recording the averments contained in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC of the plaintiff that despite making all out efforts, the said mistake which arose out of mere inadvertence of non filing of the plaint map could not be detected earlier and it was only when the evidence was adduced that the mistake came to light.

This Court is of the view that though the order of the learned trial Court is not very happily worded in respect of allowing of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by exercise of due diligence in the interest of justice and also to ensure proper adjudication of the issue involved herein, the trial Court has rightly exercised the discretionary power vested in it under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC while allowing the amendment application after the commencement of trial.

The impugned order can though be deprecated for not being happily worded in respect of exercise of due diligence but at the same time ought to be appreciated for passing an order which serves the interest of justice in bringing on record the plaint map which will ultimately be helpful in arriving at the truth.

The trial Court has rightly given precedence to a much larger concept of interest of justice that technicality of law without causing any prejudice to the opposite side and therefore the impugned order deserves to be and is therefore upheld.

This Court declines interference in the limited supervisory jurisdiction u/S. 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed sans cost.