HEM LATA SHARMA Vs. LALITA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenges the order dated 18.07.2012, whereby the application preferred by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is allowed by the Court below.

(2.) In a suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff, the defendants filed their written statement on 02.07.2012. The plaintiff preferred an amendment application, Annexure P/7, under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. on 13.07.2012. The other side submitted its objection, Annexure P/8. The Court below allowed the said amendment application by the impugned order.

(3.) This order is challenged on the ground that after amendment in Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. with effect from 01.07.2002, it was mandatory on the part of the person seeking amendment to show and establish due diligence. In other words, after the amendment, it is obligatory on the part of the party seeking amendment to establish the reasons for delay and "due diligence". In the present case, the amendment application was preferred after the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the amendment application was impermissible. In support of this contention, Shri B. B. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on (Additional District Magistrate, (City) Agra Vs. Prabhakar Chaturvedi and another, 1996 AIR(SC) 2359) and (Vidyabai and Others Vs. Padmalatha and another, 2009 2 SCC 409). He also relied on (J. Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others, 2012 3 MPLJ 37).