MAHENDRA SINGH @ RAJA Vs. NAVNEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order, Annexure P -1, whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected. The court below has rejected the application on the ground that the matter is already posted for evidence. On 28.10.2010 issues were framed. The petitioner is seeking amendment belatedly without showing any due diligence. Although Shri Anil Saxena relied on : 2004 (1) MPWN SN 21 (Punjab National Bank vs. Indian Bank) and : 2009 (1) MPWN SN 93 (Gopi Ramchandani vs. A.H. Ramchandani), but in my considered opinion, the texture of consideration stood changed after amendment in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. As held in : (2009) 2 SCC 409 (Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another), unless due diligence is established, the court has no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment. The Apex Court in Vidyabai's case (supra) held as under: -

(2.) THE said judgment was recently followed by Supreme Court in : (2012) 2 SCC 300 (J. Samuel and Others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others), wherein it is held as under: -

(3.) THE judgments in Vidyabai and J. Samuel (supra) have taken stock of all relevant judgments of Supreme Court passed in earlier point of time.