RAMLAUT AND 3 OTHERS Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent has instituted Original Suit No. 586 of 1990. The petitioners, who are defendants in the suit have filed their written statement on 4 Sept. 1990. In the year 2012, the plaintiff respondent filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint. It was alleged that by inadvertence certain important facts could not be stated in the plaint and the same may be permitted to be incorporated, as it would enable the Court to decide the real questions in controversy between the parties. The amendment application was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that it is highly belated. The trial Court by an order dated 13 Feb. 2013 rejected the amendment application on the sole ground that it is highly belated and no proper explanation has been given for filing the amendment application at such a belated stage. The plaintiff respondent preferred Civil Revision No. 32 of 2013. The Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 15 April 2014 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for a fresh consideration of the application for amendment in the plaint. The Revisional Court has held that mere delay in moving the amendment application can not be made a ground to reject the amendment application. For coming to such conclusion, the Revisional Court has placed reliance on various decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, no application for amendment could 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 trial. It is submitted that the plea now sought to be raised was known to the plaintiff respondent and could have been raised before the commencement of the trial.

(3.) The amended provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply in respect of pleadings filed before the commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 as provided under Sec. 16(2)(b) thereof. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Town Municipal Council, (2007) 1 SCC 765.