IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 280 of 2026 PURSHOTTAMDAS JI AGRAWAL DECEASED THROUGH LR DEEPAK AGRAWAL Versus ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL DECEASED THROUGH LRS SMT RAJDULARI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Paras Panjwani - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

16.07.2025 passed by the trial Court whereby rejecting the application of the petitioner-tenant under section 151 CPC in which a prayer had been made by the petitioner-tenant that the amendment made by the plaintiff-landlord in the plaint be discarded as he has not carried out the amendment within the time prescribed.

2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of present petition are that the plaintiff had filed an application for amendment seeking to insert some grounds on account of death of original plaintiff-landlord and seeking to insert the grounds in the eviction suit as are still available to the legal representatives. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 08.02.2025 and the trial Court granted time till the next date of listing before the trial Court to carry out the amendment.

3. The next date fixed was 24.02.2025 on which date the plaintiff and his counsel were absent and then on the next date i.e. 08.03.2025 the counsel was present but plaintiff witnesses were absent and then the case was fixed on 24.03.2025.

4. On 24.03.2025 the plaintiff counsel carried out the amendment which was permitted by the trial Court and verified by the trial Court. The petitioner-tenant filed an application before the trial Court under section 151 CPC on 04.04.2025, that the amendment be discarded and rejected because the amendment has not been incorporated within the time prescribed and that it has been carried out in contravention of law.

5. This application has now been rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.07.2025 noting that the amendment was incorporated by the plaintiff on the next date with permission of the Court and therefore, the application under section 151 CPC for discarding the amendment has been rejected.

6. Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is seen that in the present case the amendment was allowed on 08.02.2025 and the Court had fixed the time limit up to next date, that is upto 24.02.2025. The amendment has been ultimately incorporated on 24.03.2025 and February being of 28 days, the amendment has been incorporated within

28 days of the time so fixed by the trial Court.

7. Though it is not in dispute that there was no formal application under Order 6 Rule 18 CPC filed by the plaintiff-landlord before the trial Court for enlargement of time but it is seen that it was a case which was within the purview of section 148 CPC wherein the Court can in its discretion enlarge not exceeding 30 days in total, the time granted by the Court for doing of any act. As the amendment was being incorporated within 28 days of expiry of time limit fixed by the Court, therefore the Court had simply permitted the amendment to be incorporated by the counsel for plaintiff without any formal application which was within the discretion and jurisdiction of the Court to do and in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not erred in permitting the amendment to be incorporated in plaint, which was with a delay of 28 days from the time so fixed by the trial Court for the said purpose.

8. The exercise of jurisdiction under section 148 CPC would not depend on any application and in the present case since it was within the time limit of section 148 CPC, i.e. within 30 days, therefore the trial Court having permitted amendment to be incorporated without any formal application cannot be stated to be an illegality warranting rejection of the amendment.

9. So far as reliance placed by the counsel for petitioner in the case of Union of India Vs. Pramo