CHETNA SINGH Vs. AZUDDI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the interlocutory order passed on 17.10.2013 in Case no. 26 -A/2013 by IV Additional Civil Judge Class II, Distt. Guna, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by the defendant/petitioner herein has been rejected solely on the ground that the same has been presented after commencement of trial and despite possessing knowledge about the subject matter of proposed amendment, the same was not brought forth earlier.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

(3.) PETITIONER has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in case of Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar and Another reported in : 2009 (Vol. 14) SCC 38, that wherein it is laid down that where amendment to the written statement is sought and the evidence has not yet commenced after framing of issues, the term 'commencement of trial' employed in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC must be understood in the limited sense as meaning thereby the final hearing of suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments.