DHARAM CHAND Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the application for amendment of the plaint in the suit claiming declaration to be owner in possession of house constructed on plot No.99-A, measuring 330 sq. yard bearing M.C. No.B-XX-3507 situated in Kartar Singh Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and challenging various sale deeds dated 24.11.1995, 13.3.1992, 26.7.1988 and 19.5.1988 with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction by incorporating the paragraphs mentioned in the application, has been allowed.

(2.) Mr. Bhanu Partap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the aforementioned suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, issues were framed on 07.09.2017 and trial had commenced but the application for amendment of the plaint was moved in October, 2017. Though the same has been allowed in November, 2017 but the plaintiff has failed to give reasons of due diligence as to why the averments made in the pleadings sought to be incorporated were prevented. In the absence of the same, application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not permissible. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, 2006(12) SCC 1 and judgment of this Court in Sharanjit Kaur v. Kulwant Singh and others, 2015(1) ICC 193 .

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book. Order 6 Rule 2 CPC reads as under:-