HASAN DIN Vs. SHER MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.2008 whereby the application filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) for amendment of the written statement has been rejected on two grounds; firstly that the amendment has been filed after commencement of the trial and the Defendant has failed to show due diligence and secondly that the amendment is not necessary and by way of such amendment the very nature of the written statement is being changed.

(2.) AS far as the first point is concerned, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has erred in applying the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. This proviso came into effect on 15th July, 2002 and this Court in a number of cases has held that this proviso will be applicable only in suits filed after 15th July, 2002. The present suit was filed much earlier.

(3.) IT would be pertinent to mention that in para 2 in the plaint a pedigree table was depicted and in this pedigree table Mehar Din and Ranu were shown as the sons of Noordin and it was specifically mentioned in para 2 of the plaint as follows: