IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 11 OF MARCH, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 20771 of 2016 BETWEEN:-

RAMDHANI S/O LATE SHRI MOLAI KORI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRUCULTURE BERMA TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SHREYASH PANDIT - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. KISHORILAL @ RAMKISHORE S/O LATE LALMAN KORI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BERMA TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. NANDKISHORE S/O LATE LALMAN KORI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BERMA, TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. MIJAJILAL S/O LATE LALMAN KORI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE CHUNAHA TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DILIP S/O LATE MOHANLAL KORI, AGED ABOUT

49 YEARS, BERMA, TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. ASHOK S/O LATE MOHANLAL KORI, AGED ABOUT

47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BERMA, TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. MAHENDRA S/O LATE MOHANLAL KORI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BERMA, TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL

7. KAMAL @ PAPPU S/O LATE MOHANLAL KORI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BERMA, TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

8. SMT. GEETA D/O LATE MOHANLAL W/O RAJESH KORI @ PATEL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SHANKAR GHEE BHANDAR, NEAR GARHA PHATAK, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

9. SMT. GILLI D/O LATE JUGRAU KORI W/O SUMRU KORI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE DELHA TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

10. SMT. JALEBIYA D/O LATE JUGRAU KORI W/O SUMRU KORI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE DELHA TEHSIL MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

11. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR, SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI S.K. AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI ANUBHAV JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.11/STATE)

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

ORDER

By way of present petition challenge is made to an order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No.85A/2016 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff has been rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he has filed an suit for declaration of title, possession and grant of permanent injunction with respect to suit property 0.011 hectare of Araji No.1283 and also for partition and possession of half share in the disputed property, if the petitioner is not found Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL to be in possession. Plaintiff and the defendants belong to the same family.

3. On notice being issued, the defendant Nos.4 to 7 denied the contentions of the plaintiff. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the plaint pointing out the fact that due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake, the map annexed with the plaint does not properly describe the correct situation of the disputed property, which is required to be corrected for just and proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the civil suit. This mistake came to notice of the plaintiff during preparation of the plaintiff's evidence and, therefore, the mistake is bonafide in nature and will be corrected. The learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that permitting to correct the map will amount to change of the entire map itself, therefore, nature of the suit will be changed.

4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 with reference to para 70 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has framed certain guidelines which are required to be considered while dealing with an ap