AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on admission.
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 11.11.2019, passed by First Civil Judge Class II, Sidhi, in C.S. No.46-A/2018, whereby the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been rejected.
Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and has also sought relief under Section 34/38 alternatively under Section 5 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for declaring the entries in the name of defendant/petitioner in the revenue records regarding the property situated at village Khadi, Tahesil Sihaval, district Sidhi as null and void on the ground that she is in possession of the suit property, however, the petitioner in collusion with the revenue authorities has obtained the forged entries in the records. Defendant/petitioner has filed his written statement and denied the plaint averments. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking amendment in the written statement, which was objected to by the plaintiff. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and going through the record, rejected the application of the petitioner.
The contention of Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of preparing for evidence, it came to his knowledge that the counsel failed to mention some important facts in the written statement, therefore, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in para 4 of the written statement. It is submitted that the suit is at the preliminary stage and the amendment does not change the nature of the suit, hence the same ought to have been allowed. Reliance is placed on (2008) 8 SCC 511 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (dead) by LRs.
A perusal of the documents on record as well as the impugned order shows that the written statement was filed on 05.08.2016 by the petitioner and the amendment application was filed on 23.07.2019. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 belong to the same family and had full knowledge of the case.
The amendment sought by the petitioner is with regard to facts, which were in his knowledge even prior to the filing of the written statement. Moreover, the application has been filed after much delay and no reason has been assigned for the delay. It is seen that the trial has already commenced and the matter is listed for further evidence of the plaintiff.
Once, the trial has commenced, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. comes into play, which mandates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
In the present case, the proposed amendments were already in the knowledge of the defendant/petitioner at the time of filing the written statement. There is no explanation by the defendant/petitioner as to why these amendments could not be brought on record earlier.
The case law relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of present case as in North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur (supra) the effect of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.PC. has not been considered.
Hence in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
This petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.