MEHAR SINGH, SON OF SH. PASHORI LAL, R/O VILLAGE BEHRA, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA HP Vs. SURJEET SON OF SH. DESH RAJ, R/O VILLAGE BEHRA, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to introduce an amendment in the plaint after a period of more than five years of the institution of the suit. In application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as instituted by the plaintiff -respondent herein, the reason given for not incorporating the facts which now he seeks to incorporate are that:

(2.) THAT the applicant/plaintiff is a innocent person having rural background at the time of filing suit could not explain properly the mode/method or manner of payment amount of Rs. 1,60,000/ - to the defendant at the time of execution of agreement of sale dated 30 -9 -06, hence the applicant/plaintiff want to amend his plaint in the following manner with the bonafide purpose to make clarity of his pleadings.

(3.) As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also the question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. Even if, such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and laches in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment. (at p. 627)