UCO BANK Vs. SATYENDRA PRAKASH ATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

(2.) THIS revision has arisen from the order dated 08.12.2004, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi, rejecting amendment sought by defendant -revisionist in the written statement vide amendment application dated 22.11.2004.

(3.) THERE is no averment in the entire application as to why the amendment sought by revisionist could not have been mentioned at the time of filing written statement and hence there is no compliance of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. Time and again, Apex court has given a very wide scope of amendment of pleadings but there has been an intervention of Legislature with an object for preventing dilatory tactics to delay disposal of cases and in that view of the matter, first intervention came by virtue of Amendment Act, 1999 whereby in Order 6; Rules 17 and 18 were omitted. However, this complete omission did not found favour with the litigating people and realizing great hardship, Legislature again intervened vide Amendment Act, 2002 whereby Rule 17 was incorporated but a restriction in the shape of a proviso was added therein. Order 6 Rule 17 came to be inserted by Amendment Act, 2002 reads as under: