HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sharifuddin Khan – Appellant
Versus
Rahees Uddin – Respondent
MP 5484/2024
##PAGE1##
1 MP-5484-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
th
ON THE 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 5484 of 2024
SHARIFUDDIN KHAN
Versus
RAHEES UDDIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Piyush Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ambuj Jain Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
trial Court dated 03-05-2024 whereby the trial Court has allowed the
application for amendment in the plaint to the extent of permitting the
plaintiff to insert the relief of recovery of possession in the original plaint
and permitting the pleadings to be inserted in the plaint that during pendency
of the suit, the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the defendant.
2. The aforesaid order is challenged on the ground that initially the
suit was filed only for declaration and permanent injunction and a
counterclaim was filed by the defendant. The original suit was dismissed in
terms of Order 9 Rule 8 CPC on 15.3.2018 while the counterclaim continued
to proceed before the trial Court and the counterclaim was decreed on 17-09-
2018 holding that the defendant is in actual possession of the suit land but his
title was not proved on the suit land. Therefore, the Court granted decree
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 06-02-2026
14:05:22
##PAGE2##2 MP-5484-2024
of permanent injunction against dispossession without following due process
of law, in favour of the defendant vide judgement and decree dated 17-09-
2018.
3. In parallel proceedings, the application of the plaintiff under Order
9 Rule 9 CPC continued and the trial Court on 3-2-2020 allowed the said
application and the suit was brought back to life. Before the suit had been
rejected in terms of Order 9 Rule 8 CPC on 15.3.2018, the plaintiff
had already filed an application on 20-12-2017 for the questioned
amendment which was decided by the trial Court initially vide order dated 8-
2-2018 and which was put to challenge in MP No. 2757 of 2020, which was
decided after restoration of the suit and this Court directed the trial Court
to reconsider the application looking to the position that when the application
was filed, the trial had not commenced.
4. After the said order was passed by this Court on 11-09-2023,
then the trial Court has now allowed the application on 3-5-2024.
5. The said order is criticized for the petitioner on the ground that
there is already a finding of the trial Court in counter claim that the plaintiff
is not in possession and the plaintiff was never in possession and therefore,
the relief of possession may be hit by limitation and also that it changes the
nature of the suit.
6 . Upon considering the aforesaid assertion, it is seen that the
amendment application was filed in the year 2017 which has been decided in
the year 2024 and it was filed before commencement of trial. The suit is of
the year 2014. The plaintiff submits that he has been dispossessed from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 06-02-2026
14:05:22
##PAGE3##3 MP-5484-2024
suit land during pendency of the suit and if the plaintiff submits that he is not
in possession, then it becomes imperative for the plaintiff to sue for
possession by seeking consequential relief.
7 . Therefore, the amendment having been filed before starting
of evidence on the assertion that it is being filed on account of subsequent
events, it cannot be said that the trial Court has exercised a jurisdiction which
was not vested in it. The order of the trial Court is found to be valid and as
per law.
8. So far as the assertion of the petitioner that the amendment is
barred by time, it would be for the defendant to raise the objection in the
consequential amendment and the said objection of the petitioner-defendant
would still remain open to be considered by the trial court in accordance with
law.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARA
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.