NAVEEN BECTOR Vs. RAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29.10.2019, of the learned trial court, dismissing his application filed under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, by which he sought to amend his written statement. It is necessary to notice at the outset that the petitioner is the son of the respondent-plaintiff.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the application was filed at a stage when the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner, i.e. the defendant, the respondent/plaintiff already having led his evidence. It has further been stated that the amendment sought by the defendant (erroneously shown to be the plaintiff in one part of the impugned order), was not of such a nature as was not in the knowledge of the petitioner/defendant previously, which he could not have raised with due diligence at the initial stage. It has further been stated in the order that the trial had been fixed for the defendants' evidence since 24.09.2018, i.e. more than a year prior to the passing of the impugned order, and consequently, in terms of the proviso to the Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the application could not be allowed at that stage.

(3.) Before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact the respondent/plaintiff had also amended her plaint at a stage when her evidence was being led, i.e. after the trial had started, which application was allowed on 12.10.2017, after which the petitioner filed a written statement to the amended plaint and thereafter moved the application that has been dismissed on 22.08.2019. He therefore submits that an indulgence having been granted to the respondent/plaintiff after the trial had started, the same concession could not have been refused to the petitioner, especially as the amendment that had been sought, is not of a nature that would alter his plea as already taken in the written statement, but is only in elaboration thereof. In support of his argument he relies upon two judgements of the Supreme Court in " Baldev Singh others vs. Manohar Singh and another , 2006 3 RCR(Civ) 844" and " Raj Kumar Bhatia vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia , 2018 1 RCR(Civ) 275, as also two judgements of a co-ordinate bench of this Court, in " Amar Singh vs. Nirmal Singh and another , 2016 3 RCR(Civ) 192" and " Aadish Aggarwal vs. Brijeshwar Swaroop , 2018 189 PunLR 270". From that judgment he points to paragraph 14, in which it was held that simply due to a delay in filing an application under Order VI rule 17 CPC, the amendment could not have been refused, in terms of the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in " Surender Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh , 2010 157 PunLR 231", as also Baldev Singh (supra).