NARNE ESTATES P LTD Vs. N GOPAL NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition arises out of order dated 18.1.2011 in IA No.71/2010 in OS No.9/2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, Nalgonda District.

(2.) THE petitioner-company is the plaintiff in the suit filed for perpetual injunction against respondent No. 1. It is its case that respondent No.1 was its Director at one point of time, that in his capacity as the Director, he obtained General Powers of Attorney in his favour from various land owners on its behalf, that as he started misusing the said General Powers of Attorney, the petitioner was constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction. When an ad interim injunction was granted in its favour, the same was questioned in CMA No.543/2005 and this Court in CMA MP No.1228/2005, on 13.9.2005, while granting suspension of the interim injunction, inter alia, made the following observations: "Prima facie, no declaratory decree is sought against the petitioner in the main suit declaring that he ceased to be a Director of the company except seeking injunction restraining him from the sale of the company properties." More than five years after the said observations were made, the petitioner filed IA No.71/2010 seeking permission to amend the plaint by adding the prayer for declaration that the General Powers of Attorney executed in favour of respondent No.1 by various owners of the lands while he was working as the Director of the petitioner-company are for and on its behalf and for its benefit and for some other reliefs. Respondent No.1 has resisted the said application mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to plead and prove that despite due diligence, he could not file the application for amendment before commencement of the trial. THE Court below after considering the rival pleas, dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that the same does not satisfy the requirements of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short "the Code").

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code permits amendment of pleadings by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. However, the proviso to the said provision prohibits such application being allowed after the commencement of trial, 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. This proviso is inserted obviously to ensure that the parties will not unduly prolong the litigation and they are diligent in pursuing the litigation. Therefore, an application for amendment of pleadings filed after commencement of the trial needs to be considered keeping in view the above salutary purpose for which the proviso is inserted.