IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 6 OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 1783 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

HAKIM PAL @ HARIKISHAN PAL S/O SHRI DHANIRAM PAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOPKEEPER, R/O GHOSI MOHALLA RAMA MARKET KE PICCHE PATANKAR BAZAR LASHKAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SANJEEV JAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND RAMSINGH PAL S/O LATE SHRI BANSHI PAL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O NEHRU PETROL PUMP KE PASS, BAI SAHEB KI PARED LASHKAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI P.C. CHANDIL - ADVOCATE )

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 18.1.2023 passed by the Court of VIIth Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.65A/2014 RCS whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondent/plaintiff had filed a civil suit for eviction of tenanted shop as well as for recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner/defendant on the ground as contained in Section 12 Signature Not Verified (1) (a), (c) and (f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

3. The petitioner/defendant by filing a written statement denied the plaint averments and submitted that adjacent to the suit shop there is a vacant shop which is in possession of the plaintiff. In the said shop son of the plaintiff is doing business in the name and style of M/s Shriram Boot House, and therefore, plaintiff does not required the suit shop bonafidely for doing business as son of the plaintiff already doing business in other premises. 4. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to elaborate his pleadings with regard to genuineness of the requirement of the plaintiff. The plaintiff/respondent has not filed any reply to the said application. However, the trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the petitioner/defendant's application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 18.1.2023 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, thus, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was further contended that the learned trial Court misread the provision of Section 6 Rule 17 of CPC and rejected the application on the ground that by way of the said propose amendment defendant wants to withdraw the pleadings made in the written statement.

6 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order dated 18.1.2023 has rightly been passed by the learned Trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

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

Signature Not Verified

8. In Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly and others reported in (2008)

7 SCC 85 after considering Panchdeo Narain Srivastava vs. Jyoti Sahay, reported in 1984 Supp SCC 594 and Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Ladha Ram and Co. reported in (1976) 4 SCC 320, dealing with the amendment on withdrawal of admissions in the pleadings, it was held in para 28 as follows:

'28. What, therefore, emerges from the discussions made hereinbefore is that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from but, in a given case, it may be explained or clarified. Offering explanation in regard to an admission or explaining away the same, however, would depend upon the nature and character thereof. It may be that a defendant is entitled to take an alternative plea. Such alternative pleas, however, cannot be mutually destructive of each other.'

9. Further, a party cannot be permitted to wholly withdraw the admission in the pleadings, as had held by the Apex Court in the matter of Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalplatram Ichharam alias Braijram and others reported i