UMESH HARGOVIND KHANDELWAL Vs. JAGDISH TEJA DEVDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with the consent of parties. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by plaintiff/petitioner against order dtd. 23/3/2021 passed in Civil Suit No.18-A/2018 by the Ist Civil Judge, Class-I, Manawar, District Dhar, whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC seeking leave of the Court to amend his plaint has been rejected.

(2.) The plaintiff has instituted an action on 25/4/2018 for specific performance of contract dtd. 23/1/2015. The written statement to plaintiff's claim has been filed by defendant No.1 on 3/8/2018. On 13/3/2020 the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint Signature Not Verified to plead that cause of action has always been accruing to him. He further prayed SAN for amendment of relief clause of the plaint to add the relief that in case specific Digitally signed by JYOTI performance cannot be granted in his favour then compensation in lieu thereof be granted. He also sought to add the heading in the list of documents filed by him. The application was contested by defendant No.1 by filing his reply. By the impugned order plaintiff's amendment application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the same is belated and has been proposed after commencement of trial i.e. after filing of affidavits in evidence of plaintiff's witnesses and no reason has been given by plaintiff for the delay in proposing the amendment.

(3.) Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the amendments sought for by plaintiff are only formal in nature and for claiming an additional relief which is permissible as per Sec. 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act itself hence the embargo contained in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC would not be applicable hence his application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court.