MALKHAN SINGH Vs. VIMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. One Smt. Vimala Devi filed a succession case claiming herself to be the widow of late Adhar Singh. The said miscellaneous case was filed in April, 2003. The petitioner filed his written statement on 5-9-2003. Thereafter the evidence of the said Vimala Devi had been closed and the petitioner was granted time to adduce evidence. At this stage the petitioner filed an application on 17-2-2006 seeking amendment of his written statement. By order dated 14-3-2006 the said application of the petitioner has been rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in the present case the trial has already commenced. The petitioner has not brought on record any ground for allowing the amendment application after the commencement of the trial nor has he placed on record the reason because of which he could not, in spite of due diligence, raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. The said amendment application has been filed after the evidence of the applicant-Vimala Devi had been closed and opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence. A perusal of the impugned order shows that after seeking adjournment on several dates for adducing evidence, such an amendment application has been filed by the petitioner, and that too without assigning any reasons for filing such an application at such a late stage. I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the Court below that the application has been filed by the petitioner only to delay the decision of the case.