1. This petition was filed challenging the order dated 18.8.2006 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No.

268-A/2006 by which the respondent NO.1's application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, on the ground that the proposed amendment was in compliance of the order passed by the High Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the order in part. The grievance of the petitioner is only in respect of allowing the amendment in para 6 of the plaint in which the respondent had raised following plea:

^^ ijUrq izfroknh dzekad 1 ds eu esa izkjaHk ls gh cnfu;fr] Ny] diV] /kks[kk nsus dh fu;r FkhA mDr dkj.k ls mlds }kjk u rks psd fn, x, ,oa u gh oknh dks fdlh vU; izdkj ls fodz; izfrQy dk Hkqxrku fd;kA**

3. It was submitted by the petitioner that such amendment was not permitted by the High Court. The entire suit was based on the ground that consideration of the sale deed was not paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 and on this ground, the sale deed was sought to be declared as null and void, but so far as plea of dishonesty, fraud, deceiving and cheating is concerned, the suit was not filed on this count. The limitation started on 24.6.2002 when the respondent No. 1 filed a suit before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, but subsequently the suit was withdrawn and filed before the civil Court. In the suit filed before the civil Court also no such plea was raised and for the first time in the year 2008 such plea was raised, which the trial Court allowed without considering it on merits.

4. It was submitted by the petitioner that the order of the trial Court in so far it relates to allowing the amendment as quoted hereinabove may be set aside and the respondent No.1's application in that regard may be dismissed.

5. Shri K.N. Fakhruddin, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, supported the order and submitted that the pleadings were already in the plaint and the plaintiff sought amendment making pleas specific by the proposed amendment and submitted that the impugned order is in accordance with law, it needs no interference of this Court.

6. From the perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-l), it is apparent that the entire suit was based on the premises that though the sale deed was got executed but the payment was to be made by post dated cheques, dates of which are mentioned in para 5 of the plaint, but the aforesaid cheques were dishonored and on this ground the sale deed was prayed to be declared null and void, but no plea of fraud, dishonesty, cheating or deceiving was in the plaint and for the first time by amendment application Annexure P-4, this plea was sought to be incorporated in the plaint. The Writ Petition No. 3615/2000 was filed before this Court in respect of valuation and payment of court-fee. This Court affirmed the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the trial Court. This Court while allowing the writ petition directed thus:

"In the alternative, the relief of payment of sale consideration has also been prayed along with possession, thus the order with respect to ad valorem court-fees is found to be proper. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that trial Court has not considered the question whether the valuation for other reliefs made is proper or not.

The question, if raised before the trial Court has to be considered by it.

9. Question of limitation has been raised for the first time in the writ petition filed by the defendant-petitioner, this question cannot be examined in the writ petition at the first instance. If permissible petitioner has to raise such an objection before the trial Court."

7. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that this Court had not permitted respondent No. 1 to seek amendment in respect of merits of the case.

8. Apart from this, the trial Court while considering the amendment application, not considered th