BHARAT HOTELS LTD Vs. SATISH KUMAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 05.01.2019 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun in Original Suit No.5 of 2013 "Satish vs. Chaman & Others", whereby said court has rejected the application moved by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC).

(2.) Factual matrix of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) instituted a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deeds dated 29.02.2008, 23.12.2008 and 18.12.2008 executed between the defendants, on the ground, that the property was sold in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 prior to execution of these sale deeds. Petitioner/defendant no.5 and defendant nos.2 to 4 contested the suit and filed written statement on 15.03.2013. On the basis of pleadings of parties, issues were framed. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence. The matter was then fixed by the trial court for arguments. In the meantime, petitioner/defendant no.5 moved an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC stating that the respondent no.1/plaintiff is claiming his rights over the property in dispute on the basis of sale deed executed by Late Munna and Chaman, and that legal heirs of Late Munna has not been arrayed as party to the present suit who are proper and necessary party to elucidate controversy and for just decision of the present case. Petitioner/defendant no.5, thus, prayed that following para may be added after para-38 of written statement of defendant no.5 :-

(3.) Learned Trial Court, after considering the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and the case-laws cited by the petitioner/defendant no.5 as well as on perusal of record, arrived to the conclusion that evidence has been concluded and the applicant has failed to show any reason for not filing amendment application earlier and that the amendment sought is not necessary for disposal of the case and it appears to have been filed just to delay the proceedings. The Trial Court, thus, rejected the application.