PREM CHAND SHARMA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.12.2009 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff-revisionist under Order VI, Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

(2.) I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

(3.) Admittedly, the written statement was filed on 8.2.2007 and thereafter, the parties led their evidence and when the stage of evidence was over and trial had commenced, the amendment application was moved on 28.11.2009. Proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 clearly provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In the present case, in view of the fact that denial was made in the written statement on 8.2.2007 there was hardly any reason for the plaintiff to have not moved the amendment application, if at all it was required, within a reasonable time. Further the amendment was not at all required as the plaintiff-revisionist had already mentioned in the plaint that he is the landlord. In the absence of any cogent reason explained by the plaintiff-revisionist for delay in moving the application, no illegality appears to have been committed by the Court below in rejecting the same.