AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
This civil revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 15.01.2018, by which the amendment sought by the revisionist under
Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected by the trial court on the grounds that the revisionist has filed the application for amendment after a period
of more than 16 years from the date of filing the suit and allowing the application of the revisionist would amount to change in the nature of the suit
itself.
Rule 17 of Order VI CPC reads as under:-
“Order VI Rule 17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in
such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real
questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided 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.â€
Although a bare reading of the aforesaid provision shows that the Court has powers to allow the amendment application at any stage of the
proceedings, but this is restricted by the proviso where such an amendment is not liable to be allowed unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in
spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial.
In this case, the suit itself was filed by the plaintiff who is revisionist before this Court way back in the year 1999 i.e. nearly 19 years back. What
the amendment is sought in the plaint that due to inadvertence the name of mortgagor was wrongly shown and certain new persons are liable to be
impleaded as defendants now. There is no whisper in the amendment application as to what was the compelling reason for bringing such an
application at such a belated stage and whether even in spite of due diligence the plaintiff could not have raised the matter or move appropriate
application before the commencement of the trial.
Now at this stage when the entire stage of evidence is completed and final decision is now to be taken, such an application is not liable to be
allowed.
In view of this Court, the application has rightly been rejected by the court below. No interference is therefore called for with the order dated
15.01.2018. Consequently, civil revision is hereby dismissed.