ARVIND GARG Vs. NEETA SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by the Plaintiff. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application. According to the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, since explanations about income, financial status and acquisition of the properties were to be given, a second application for amendment of the plaint was moved which came to be dismissed on merits by this court by an order dated 06.12.2013.

(2.) During hearing of the earlier said second application, it was urged by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff that by virtue of the amendments, the Plaintiff was not withdrawing any of his submissions and the nature of the plaint remained the same. It was stated that only additional reliefs of possession and rendition of accounts was being sought, though this averment of the Plaintiff was objected to by the learned counsel for the Defendant. However, nothing was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Defendant to show whether any submission was withdrawn or whether any relief was claimed vide amendment which was barred by limitation. Para 9 of the order dated 06.12.2013 is extracted hereunder:

(3.) However, while dismissing the application, this Court observed that the amendments sought would be permissible only under Section 151 CPC under special circumstances and not under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Para 19 of the order is extracted hereunder: