IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 7223 of 2025

SANTOSH KUMAR

Versus

GOPICHAND RAJDEV

Appearance:

Shri Abhay Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dhanesh Prasad Sharma Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

29.11.2025 passed by the appellate Court whereby the appellate Court has

rejected the application for amendment in appeal memo.

2. The present petition has been filed mentioning in para 5.7 and 5.8

of the petition that the trial court had struck off the defence of defendant/tenant under Section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act vide order dated 29.04.2019. As per Paragraph No. 5.7 and 5.8 of the petition appeal, the impugned order is passed in the appeal filed before the District Court filed against the said order. The relevant pleadings in

paragraph No. 5.7 and 5.8 of the petition are as under:-

"5.7 That the Respondent No. | thus filed a Civil Suit for the arrears of the rent against the Petitioner, bearing no. RCSA 19-A/2018 before IX Civil Judge Second Division. The Respondent No. ! further moved an Application under Order 13(6) of CPC to end the right of Defence of the Plaintiff, the Ld. Trial Court thus ended the right of Defence of the Petitioner vide order dated

29.04.2019, A copy of the said order is herewith as ANNEXURE P/4.

5.8 That the Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order thus filed an Appeal before Smt. Suchita Shrivastava, XI District and Add. Sessions Judge, Bhopal (M.P.), bearing no. RCA 150/2025. A copy of the said Appeal is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P/5,"

3. The appeal in fact is filed against the final judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 27.03.2025 which has been willfully suppressed by the petitioner in the present petition. Even during course of arguments, the counsel for petitioner pressed that appeal is filed against the order dated 29.04.2019 whereby the defence had been struck off and therefore, not only in the petition, the final judgment and decree has been suppressed but also during course of the arguments it was not disclosed to this Court. This Court after perusing the appeal mamo Annexure P/5 has downloaded the final judgment and decree from the Website of the District Court concerned during course of hearing itself and confronted the counsel for the petitioner, but he expressed ignorance. Indeed there is eviction decree against the petitioner which has been suppressed by the present petitioner before this Court.

4. Even on merits by way of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the petitioner had sought to insert the ground that the petitioner had been paying rent to the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal for the shop in question. However, from a perusal of the judgment and decree which was perused by this Court by visiting the website of the District Court concerned, it is seen that these defence have already been taken by the petitioner during course of trial and the petitioner can always argue whatsoever defence has been taken by him before trial Court, in the appeal. Therefore, filing of application under Order 6 Rule 17 before the appellate Court and then filing this petition by suppressing true facts is only to a attempt to delay the decision of the appeal filed against the eviction decree.

5. Even the alleged receipts that have been filed as Annexure P/1, are not receipts of rent but are receipts of payment of property tax. There is much difference between the rent paid by tenant to landlord and property tax and therefore it is clear that the present petition is nothing but an attempt to mislead the court and is a vexatious piece of litigation.

6. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.

25,000/- to be paid by the appellant/defendent before the District Legal Services Authority, Bhopal. If the receipt is not filed before registry of this Court within 30 days, then the Registrar General of t