1980 Supreme(MP) 731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.L. Oza, J.
Nabilal – Applicant
Vs.
Sultan Mohammad – Respondent
C. Revn. No. 316 of 1980 (I)
Decided On : 04-04-1980

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) - S. 12 - suit for eviction pending - whether some more grounds may be added by way of amendment Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O.6, R. 17.

       (2) Civil P. C., - 1908 - O.6, R. 17 - amendment of pleading - whether amendment to plead more grounds may be allowed - Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) - S. 12.

       Short Note

       1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant - petitioner against an order passed by Civil Judge Class II, Biora dated 20th December 1979 allowing an application for amendment in the plaint.

       2. According to the learned counsel the amendment application was submitted during the pendency of the suit for amendment of the plaint to 'introduce some new grounds for eviction; like the tenant - petitioner has damaged the property and encroachment on the property. Learned Court below after considering the objections raised by the petitioner allowed the application and hence the present revision.

       3. Held: Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Sunderlal v. Har Prasad and another (1980 JLJ 475) subsequent events could not be considered. He also contended that for a decree under section 12 (1) (e) a notice is necessary. All these questions whether a decree on any one of these grounds could or could not be granted are questions which shall be considered at the time of hearing of the suit on merits. At present an application for amendment has been allowed and whether the plaintiff wanted to make out a case for a decree on anyone of those grounds is question which is yet to be gone into. Even the Division Bench decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not lay down that an amendment to that effect could not be allowed. Apparently therefore no error of jurisdiction could be urged. 1980 JLJ 475 referred to. Revision dismissed.