VIJAY KUMAR Vs. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the impugned order dtd. 25/9/2021 whereby the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the petitioner/defendant came to be dismissed and has prayed for following reliefs:-

(2.) Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/plaintiff has filed Civil Suit for declaration of sale deed dtd. 26/2/2004 to be null and void said to be executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant. The petitioner/defendant submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amending the written statement. The amendment sought for by the petitioner in his written statement is not for bringing any new fact but by the amendment, he only wants to elaborate the defence/pleadings of the written statement which is already existing. Trial Court without considering the nature of amendment sought in the written statement, dismissed the application which is arbitrary and illegal. He submits that amendment in the written statement can be made at any stage of the suit. Looking to the nature of amendment as prayed for, which is elaboration of the pleadings already existing in the written statement, learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He places reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Singh and Anr. (2006) 6 SCC 498.

(3.) Shri Pradeep Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the suit was filed on 26/2/2007. Petitioner submitted his reply/written statement on 16/5/2018 and thereafter on 18/5/2018 issues were framed. After examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, the petitioner/defendant has moved an application for amendment. In the application, there is no pleading that even after due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The trial Court considering the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 has rightly dismissed the application for amendment, which does not call for any interference.