AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is invoked to assail interlocutory order of trial Court in case No. 73A/12 RCSA, by which application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by the plaintiff has suffered dismissal at the hands of the trial Judge on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to show that despite exercising due diligence he could not bring forth the amendment at the earlier stage and that the amendment would change basic nature of the suit.
The suit in question was for declaration and permanent injunction. Declaration was sought to the extent that defendant is obliged to alienate the property in favour of the plaintiff and decree for restraining defendant from selling the property to somebody. However, the said factum is disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant as no such transaction of agreement to sell took place.
At the stage of adducing of evidence of defendant, an application for amendment was moved by the plaintiff which has suffered dismissal by the impugned order.
A bare perusal of application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC reveals that it does not disclose as to when the subject matter of amendment which is claimed to be a subsequent event arose and came to the knowledge of the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner herein submits that during cross-examination of the defendant the said aspect came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. However, the said submission does not find support from the contents of the application for amendment as it merely averts that defendants have alienated the suit property on 2.3.2013 and, therefore, the trial Court presume that the knowledge of the said fact of alienation must have been acquired by the plaintiff in 2013 itself.
In view of the above, the jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court by rejecting the application for amendment cannot be found fault with in limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution.
However, if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate that he could not bring forth the amendment at the early stage of suit despite exercise of due diligence he is free to file fresh application for amendment.
With the abovesaid observation and liberty, the present petition stands disposed of without interfering on merits of the matter.
Registry is directed to communicate passing of this order to the learned trial Court.