MOHAN AGRAWAL Vs. RAHUL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order passed by III Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior on 23.08.2013 in case No. 27A/2013 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. preferred by the defendant for amendment in his written statement has been rejected. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The Trial Court while rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., assigned the reason that the defendant has not been able to establish that despite exercise of due diligence the subject matter of the proposed amendment was not known to the petitioner earlier and that the trial has already commenced making the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. applicable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while allowing an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. of the defendant for taking documents on record, the corresponding amendment in the pleadings sought by way of application under Order 6 Rule 17 has been rejected which cannot be countenanced in law. It is further contended that both the orders of allowing application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) and rejecting application under Order 6 Rule 17 are contradictory.