JAIPAL SINGH Vs. SAMAJIK VANIKI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. contemplates the manner in which the amendment in the pleading already made by the parties should be brought out at any stage of proceedings. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17, in its proviso, contemplates that no application for amendment can be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the amendment sought by party to the suit could not be raised earlier, before the commencement of the trial.

(2.) This provision has to be looked into from another view point that the amendment in the pleadings cannot be claimed as a matter of right, because the prerogative of bringing about the amendment in the pleading by invoking provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 has given the responsibility to the Court which may, on satisfaction of conditions, meaning thereby, merely on filing of an application, it does not mean that it had to be allowed.

(3.) It is always the prerogative of the Court which may subject to the conditions laid down under Order 6 Rule 17 allow the amendment application. This case stands on altogether a different pedestal. In this case, the petitioner had instituted a suit for a decree of permanent injunction in relation to a shop situated on land, bearing plot No. 59, Chandighat, Haridwar having an area of 9ft. x 8 ft. and they sought for an injunction in nature of a restrain from interference over the property.