ASHOK K RAIZADA Vs. MANJUL RAIZADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th February, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby his application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed on the ground that the trial has already commenced and with due diligence, the petitioner could have raised this matter before the commencement of trial.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner discovered some documents mentioned in para 6 of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17th May, 2009 whereupon the application seeking amendment was filed.

(3.) THE parties are living separately since 30th July, 2007 when the petitioner forced the respondent and her daughters to leave the house. THE petitioner has raised serious allegations attacking the character of the respondent. It does not appear to be plausible that the petitioner would not have cleaned/scanned the house for about two years after the respondent left the matrimonial house on 30th July, 2007. However, even assuming the petitioner's contention to be true, it shows sheer lack of due diligence. In that view of the matter, the proposed amendment is clearly hit by the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application for amendment of the written statement. THE petitioner's application does not appear to be bona fide and has been filed with the intention to delay the trial which has already commenced.