RADHA BAI Vs. SHANKARLAL KACHHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) He is heard on the question of admission.

(2.) Keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record, in the available circumstances the proposed amendment as stated in the application Annex.P/5 does not appear to be necessary. Even otherwise, in view of the settled proposition of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ajendra Prasad Ji N. Pandey and another v. Swami Keshavrakeshdasji N. and others, 2006 12 SCC 1and in the matter of J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others, 2012 3 MPLJ 37 (SC), holding that after starting the process to record the evidence in the matter, no such amendment could be allowed which was apparently in the knowledge of the concerning party on the date of filing his pleadings. The impugned application could not have been allowed by the trial court because the facts proposed in the application were very well in the knowledge of the petitioner on the date of filing the suit. Even on the date on which the issues were settled between them or in any case at the time of recording the plaintiff's evidence but no such amendment application was filed at that stage. So, in such premises, I have not found any perversity in the order impugned in dismissing the aforesaid application of order 6 rule 17 of the CPC. Consequently, till this extent, the order of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

(3.) So far the other part of the impugned order whereby her right to cross-examine the respondents witness has been closed is concerned, the impugned order in that regard has been passed by the trial court in very speaking manner in which the conduct of the petitioner is also shown. So, in such premises, the same does not require any interference.