Devendra Singh Rekhi vs Bheemsain and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner-defendant has challenged the order dated 1.2.2014 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner''s application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, and has declined to permit him to amend the written statement filed by him and has also rejected his application under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC for framing further issues.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that it was the case of the petitioner that since he was arrested in a criminal case, and during his judicial custody, he was admitted in a hospital. Therefore, he could not contact his counsel. Thus, the written statement submitted by his counsel is an incomplete one. Therefore, the same needs to be amended and certain paragraphs need to be introduced in the written statement. Hence, the petitioner had cogent reasons for his inability to submit a complete written statement bringing all the relevant facts on record. Secondly, the proposed amendments i.e. introduction of para 41 to 50 would permit the petitioner to deny some of the facts mentioned by the respondent-plaintiffs. In case these amendments are not permitted in the written statement, it would prevent the petitioner from submitting the necessary evidence during the course of the trial.

Lastly, certain issues also needed to be framed. However, without giving any cogent reason the learned Magistrate has dismissed both the applications. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has clearly opined that although the petitioner claims that he was hospitalised, but no documentary evidence has been produced to buttress this plea. Neither the admission ticket, nor the discharge ticket, nor a certificate of the treating doctor, nor the bed head ticket, has been produced to show the duration of the hospitalization. The learned Magistrate has also noted the fact that although the written statement was filed 23.5.2012, the application for amended was not submitted till 31.7.2013, i.e. the application was submitted one year and two months after the written statement was submitted. The inordinate delay of one year and two months has not been explained by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has not been able to establish, even prima facie, that for one year and two months he was hospitalised. Therefore, the necessary amendments could not be made.

As far as the proposed amendments are concerned, the learned Magistrate has discussed the contents of each para in detail, and has clearly held that some of them were already part of the written statement. Therefore, he was justified in rejecting the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.

As far as the framing of an additional issue is concerned, the learned Magistrate is justified in holding that the issues proposed are already covered by the issue Nos. 1 to 8, already framed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, there is no need to add any further issue(s).

Since the learned Magistrate has given clear, cogent and legal reasons for rejecting both the applications, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. Consequently, the stay application also stands dismissed.