LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA Vs. RAM NIRANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Shukla, appearing for the opposite party.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 22/12/2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kunda, Pratapgarh, in Original Suit No. 330/2012 rejecting his application for amendment moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC as also the order dtd. 14/2/2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh, in Civil Revision No. 14 of 2019 [Lakshmi Kant Shukla Vs. Ram Niranjan].

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a Suit No. 330 of 2012 on 18/5/2012 for permanent injunction against Hari Shankar and Ram Niranjan praying that the respondents be restrained from interfering in his Abadi land over which the petitioner is in possession. During the pendency of the Suit, the name of Hari Shankar was deleted and Ram Niranjan alone remained the defendant. The Commission was issued and a report prepared on 9/7/2012. Again a Survey Commission was issued by the court concerned and a report prepared and submitted on 10/2/2018. A written statement was filed by the defendant and issues were framed in the Suit, but till date, the parties have not adduced any evidence. An application was moved by the defendant. During preparation of the case for arguments, it was noticed by the counsel of the plaintiff that the material facts had not been stated and therefore an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the Suit was moved on 28/11/2018. The amendment moved did not affect the nature of the Suit and the Suit property remained abadi and Sahan land of the petitioner. The petitioner only wished to explain his right to Abadi land and Sahan land on the basis of a Will made out in his favour by one Hari Mohan, the maternal grand father of the petitioner. Such application was rejected on 22/12/2018 by observing that the amendment is highly time barred and it changed the nature of the Suit. The learned Trial Court did not disclose as to how the nature of the Suit would change. No opinion was also recorded in the order impugned that the Trial had begun and evidence was being led by the parties. It has been argued that since the trial had not begun, the first clause under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which entitles a party to move amendment application at any stage of the Suit would apply and not the Proviso to the Rule.