USHA BAI Vs. RAVISHANKAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 3.9.2015 by which the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Before the evidence in the suit was to be recorded, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff wanted to incorporate the plea that the compromise decree was not effective or legal and was not executable, as the same requires registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly.

(3.) From perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that the proposed amendment is necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the proceeding and would in no manner change the nature of the proceeding. However, the respondents would be at liberty to file an application seeking consequential amendment.