JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The present petition is being filed challenging the order dated 28.01.2020 passed in Civil Suit No. 193-A/2007 passed by Second Civil Judge Class II, Morena, whereby the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, 1908, has been rejected.

2. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for eviction of property in question on various grounds under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. A written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant and he has denied the plaint allegations that the plaintiff is having another vacant shop in Bhandil Market in Morena and also took some special pleas in the written statement. That issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The affidavit under Section 18(4) were filed by the plaintiff but the cross examination has not been started yet. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC on the ground that shop No. 3 shown in the map attached with the plaintiff was vacated by the tenant Ramsewak and is in possession of the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the bonafide requirement as shown is fulfilled by vacation of the aforesaid shop in question. As the aforesaid is the subsequent development after filing of the Suit therefore, the same was sought to be incorporated by way of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It is pleaded in the application that the plaintiff has recently obtained the vacant possession of the shop No. 3 from the tenant Ramsewak recently in a month. The aforesaid amendment was necessary for the just and proper disposal of the case therefore, the same was prayed to be incorporated.

3. The reply to the application was filed denying the contents of the application stating that the same is being filed just applying the delay tactics. The affidavit under 18 (4) has already been filed in the matter. It is further pointed out that the dimensions of the shop in question which has been vacated and the present shop which is in possession of the defendant are of different sizes. Therefore, it cannot be said that the bonafide requirement is fulfilled. The plaintiff has not given any exact date on which the possession of the vacant shop has been taken place by the plaintiff and he has prayed for dismissal of the application. He has further supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court stating that the defendant has not pointed out the exact date on which the vacant possession of the shop in question has handed over to the plaintiff. It is further argued that the petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having supervisory jurisdiction and limited scope of interference. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the present petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of the record it is seen that apart from the admitted facts that the plaint has been filed on the eviction of bonafide under sections 12(1)(a)(f) for showing the bonafide requirement and a written statement has been filed denying all the plaint averments. Prior to starting the cross examination of the plaintiff the application has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment to the effect that the plaintiff has already got the vacant possession of shop No. 3 recently within a month from the tenant Ramsewak, therefore, showing the need and bonafide requirement is already over. The reply to the application was filed denying all the averments and contending that the dimension of the shop in question of which the vacant possession is handed over is different and the shop is much smaller for which the present Civil Suit has been filed. Counsel