Amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC are strictly scrutinized, especially after trial commencement, and remands should only occur under justifiable circumstances, not routinely.

ORDER :

The instant misc. appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC has been filed by appellants assailing order of remand dated 26-04-2019 passed by First Additional District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Civil Appeal No.9-A of 2017, whereby the judgment and decree dated 31-01-2017 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Lateri, District Vidisha in Civil Suit No. 34-A of 2013, has been reversed and set aside.

(2) A few facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal as narrated therein are that plaintiff- respondent No.1 herein filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect of land bearing survey no. 16 ad-meauring 0.696 hectare and survey no. 100 ad-measuring 1.669 hectare situated in Village Bamori, Tehsil Lateri, District Vidisha. It was pleaded by plaintiff that he has purchased the disputed land vide registered sale deed dated 22-05-2002 from defendant No.1 Shantilal. On 10-09- 2013, when he went to spot to cut his agricultural crop, he found presence of defendants, who gave threat with dire consequences to him if he cuts the crop.

(3) Defendants no. 1 and 2 (appellants herein) filed their written statement and pleaded that defendant no.1 has never executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff and the land in question has been given to father of defendant No.1 by Government on Patta and there is a specific bar contained in Section 165 (7-b) of MPLRC that the land cannot be sold. The sale deed has been got executed by means of fraud and without any information, mutation has been made. Hence, prayed for dismissal of civil suit.

(4) After hearing pleadings of parties, trial Court framed issued and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31-01-2017 dismissed the civil suit of the plaintiff holding that the sale deed is void and plaintiff is not in possession of the property and in view of proviso to Section 34 of SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , no declaration can be given in absence of consequential relief of possession.

(5) Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred a Civil Appeal No. 9A of 2017 before the First Appellate Court. During pendency of the appeal, plaintiff also preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the plaint in order to incorporate the relief of possession. Defendants filed their reply to application pleading that no amendment can be allowed to incorporate relief of possession because it was well within the knowledge of plaintiff that he was not in possession and still he has not prayed for relief of possession in trial. Plaintiff also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for bringing additional documents on record against which defendants filed their reply. The First Appellate Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 26-04-2019 for recording of fresh evidence in view of allowing the application for amendment and for bringing additional evidence on record.

(6) Being dissatisfied, the instant misc. appeal has been preferred at the instance of appellants- defendants.

(7) It is contended on behalf of appellants- defendants that the First Appellate Court has committed a grave error in allowing the application of plaintiff filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC at the belated stage. In para 22 of the WS, the defendants have specifically deposed that they are in possession of land which has been recorded in pursuance to the order of Naib Tehsildar vide Case No.560-B/121/2009-10. It was obligatory on the party of plaintiff to seek relief of restoration of possession before the Trial Court. Once, the trial Court has given a specific finding that appellants- defendants are in possessi