Ram Dayal and Others vs District Judge Sultanpur and Others

Hon''ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 has been accepted by Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. For the order proposed, there is no need to issue notice to opposite parties no.3 and 4.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.7.2011 passed in revision by which it has been dismissed and the order of the learned trial court has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the petitioners had moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment. By the said application, the petitioners wanted to make amendment in the pleadings with respect to old gata numbers and corresponding new gata numbers of the property in question.

Learned trial court had rejected the application by order dated 28.4.2011 on the ground that the said application has been moved with undue delay at the argument stage, and not maintainable at this stage. The petitioners against the said order had preferred revision which too has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6.7.2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners had come to know about the said change in gata numbers only after inspection of the relevant records and immediately thereafter they have moved the said application. Further submission is that it is necessary in the interest of justice to amend the pleadings and therefore, they have moved the said application. In support of his submission, he has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Another, wherein in paragraph-9 it has been observed that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. can be moved at any stage and there can not be any straitjacket formula. A mere delay can not be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment. The aforesaid judgment has no assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner as the facts of the present case are different.

I have considered the submissions made by the parties'' counsel and gone through the impugned order.

It is the admitted position that the change in gata number was recorded before the filing of the suit in question. It is relevant to point out that the suit was filed in the year 1990. Amendment application was moved after approximately 21 years at the stage of final hearing. Learned court below had come to the conclusion that the amendment application at this stage is not maintainable. The revisional court has also considered the submissions made by the petitioners and had affirmed the order passed by the trial court.

The order impugned does not indicate any infirmity or illegality. It appears that the amendment application was moved at the stage of final hearing of the suit. Since it is admitted case of the petitioner that the amendment which they wanted to seek was with respect to change in the gata number was in fact done before the filing of the suit itself, as such, simply because the petitioner could not know the change in gata number, they can not be allowed to amend the pleadings at the final stage i.e. after approximately 21 years.

I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned.

The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.