SARITA RANJAN Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Durga Charan Mukherjee, for the petitioner and Sri Manish Kumar, for respondent -1. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.5.2014, rejecting the amendment application of the petitioner seeking amendment of her written statement.

(2.) DURGAWATI (respondent -5) filed an Election Petition (registered as Election Petition No. 1 of 2010) under section 27(2) of U.P. Kshetra Panchayat Evam Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, challenging the declaration of election result of the petitioner as Member of Zila Panchayat, Sultanpur from of Ward No. 1. The petitioner contested the Election Petition and filed her written statement on 21.4.2011. Thereafter, trial of Election Petition was started and evidence of the parties were completed.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. gives a wide discretion to the Court to permit the parties to amend the pleadings. Relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.,, 2005(60) ALR 483 (SC) :, 2005(30) AIC 30 (SC) he submitted that the proviso will not override the main provision as held in above case that any section should not be so interpreted that part of it becomes otiose and meaningless and very often a proviso itself is read as a substantive provision it has to be given full effect. He further relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi v. Kuntal Kumari, : AIR 1969 SC 575 and Davinder Pal Sehgal v. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., : 2002(46) ALR 289 and judgments of this Court in Phool Chand v. D.D.C. and others,, 2004(96) RD 41 and Krishna Baldeo v. State of U.P.,, 2011(29) LCD 673 in which for the purposes of condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, it has been held that 'sufficient cause' must be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. He submitted that the Court below has illegally rejected the amendment application.