RAMGOPAL GUPTA Vs. RAMVISHAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 17.04.2017, whereby the application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 27.01.2017 was rejected by the Court below. The Court below rejected the said application by holding that on 09.07.2013 issues have been framed. Two witnesses of plaintiff have filed their affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC on 24.02.2014. Since trial had commenced before filing the application for amendment and no "due diligence" has been shown, the said application cannot be entertained.

(2.) Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the finding that trial had commenced before filing the application for amendment and assailed it on the ground that objection raised in the amendment application is purely legal in nature and it was not objected/opposed by the other side. Such amendment application have been allowed by imposing reasonable cost. Reliance is placed on 2009 (14) SCC 38 [Sushil Kumar Jain vs. Manoj Kumar and another] and order of this Court passed in W.P. No. 2923/2014 [Bhaguta and another vs. Ghapua and others].

(3.) Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the said contention and submits that in absence of showing "due diligence" the amendment application was rightly disallowed. If objection of other side is purely legal in nature, they can very well raise the said objection during the oral arguments at appropriate stage before the Court below. He supported the impugned order.