Brij Kishore Dube, J. -- 1. Invoking the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/plaintiff has called in question the defensibility and tenability of the order dated 29th June, 2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Bhind in Civil Suit No. 21-A of 2009, by which his application filed under Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC, has been dismissed and the suit filed by the plaintiff has also been dismissed.

2. Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which was allowed by the learned trial Court on 13th May, 2010. Thereafter, on 29th June, 2010, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 18 of the C.P.C., on the ground that the amendment could not be carried out in the plaint due to sad demise of a family member of the counsel for the plaintiff and thereafter Courts were closed for summer vacation from 14th May, 2010 to 18th June 2010 and, therefore, prayed for condonation of delay in carrying out the amendment as well as to permit him to incorporate the amendment in the plaint but the learned Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction and not only dismissed the application under Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC but also dismissed the suit itself, therefore, learned trial Court committed an illegality in passing the impugned order.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decisions rendered by a learned Single Judge, in the case of Devhans v. Jagmohan Singh. 1980 (I) MPWN 170, Amar Singh and others v. Pooran and others. 2007 (2) MPLJ 215 and a division Bench of this Court, in the case of Shyama Prasad Datta and others v. Arun Kumar Vasudeo and others, ILR [2010] MP 1588, prayed that the impugned order dated 29th June, 2010 be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 18 of the C.P.C., be allowed. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chamrain v. Budhiyarin and another. 1975 JLJ 52.

4. Per contra, Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has submitted that application preferred by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C., was allowed. Thereafter, the plaintiff was required to amend the plaint by incorporating the name of Smt. Hukuma Devi as defendant No. 11 and further to pay the process fee for issuance of summons to the newly added defendant but no steps have been taken and neither the amendment was carried out nor the process fee was paid, but, submitted an application under Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC which was rejected by the learned trial Court for non-compliance of the Court's order and the suit itself was rightly dismissed. It has been further contended that the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable inasmuch as the plaintiff must have filed an appeal. In short, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent/defendants is that the order of dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-compliance of Court's order amounts to a decree which is appealable and as such, no petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendants in support of his contention has relied upon the decisions in the case of Shantibai v. Chokhelal, 1976 JLJ 12, rendered by a Full Bench and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madanlal Kanhaiyalal v. Jai Narayan Gendalal, 1971 JLJ 693.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. We think it appropriate to reproduce the impugned order dated 29th June, 2010 passed by the learned Trial Court before adverting to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, which reads as under:

** izdj.k vkt izfr- Ø- 11 dh mifLFkfr ,oa tcko gsrq fu;r gSA

izdj.k esa U;k;ky; ds iwoZ vkns'kkuqlkj