SHARMILA SHAW Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner Sharmila Shaw on 22.06.2009 is directed against the order No. 7 dated 06.04.2009 passed by the Learned Member (Tech.), Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in Case No. A/1414/02 whereby the Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the petition for amendment of the original claim application on the ground that the amendment sought for has been made after the initiation of the trial which cannot be entertained in view of legal provision under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) It has been stated in the application that the petitioner's husband Late Sarju Prasad Shaw met with an accident on 17.11.2001 near Agarpara Railway Canteen when he was travelling by a local train. It has also been stated that the amendment sought for is entirely formal in nature and if allowed, the same will not change the nature and character of the claim application and as such the application for amendment ought to have been allowed by the learned Tribunal, but the learned tribunal was pleased to reject the amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. inter alia on the ground that the trial had started. It has further been stated that even the amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. provides for amendment after the commencement of the trial, if the Court is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier and as such there is no absolute ban on amendment after commencement of trial. Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant application praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.04.2009.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner referring to the principle of law enunciated in the decision NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION, GORAKHPUR V. BHAGWAN DAS, 2008 8 SCC 511submitted "Principles governing the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs."