KEDARNATH Vs. MURARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent, matter is finally heard. Parties are at loggerheads on the question of validity of order dated 24.07.2009 whereby application preferred by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is rejected by the Court below.

(2.) Shri Deepak Khot, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that although trial had begun when amendment application was filed, it was based on settled legal position and on the basis of facts already on record. The amendment was necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter. If amendment would have been allowed, it would not have caused any prejudice to the other side. By placing reliance on 2004(10) SCC 779 (Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Govt. of India and Ors.), it is urged that it was open for the plaintiff to withdraw the inconsistent averments from his plaint. Reliance is placed on 2015 (4) SCC 182 (Mount Mary Enterprises Vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Private Limited). to contend that amendment application must be leniently considered. If it is necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter, amendment should not be disallowed.

(3.) Prayer is opposed by Shri Mangal. He submits that petitioner has not shown any "due diligence" and therefore, court below has not committed any legal or jurisdictional error. Hence, no interference is warrant. No other point is pressed by the counsel for the parties.