DINESH PRASAD Vs. GUPTESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff of Title Suit No. 121 of 2007 has filed the present application aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). One of the main reasons for rejecting the application is that the same was filed at a much belated stage and is, therefore, in the teeth of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code (after amendment).

(2.) HEARD Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh for the petitioner and Mr. Prasad for the defendants -respondents.

(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that mainly two reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court for rejecting the application. Firstly, the application was filed at a stage when two defendant witnesses were examined and secondly, the same was in the teeth of the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. The Court has further observed that the plaintiff has not made out a case of acting with due diligence as the written statement was filed in the year 2008 whereas the instant application was filed on 16.8.2010. The other relevant consideration for allowing such application has escaped the notice of the Court. The petitioner took the plea that the written statement was in English and, as such, in spite of due diligence, he was unable to decipher the statements made therein and the steps which required to be taken on filing of such written statement. In support of his contention, he has relied on the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Ram Kishan reported in, (2005) 13 SCC 89, Abdul Rahman vs Mohd. Ruldu reported in, 2013 (1) BBCJ IV 29 as also an unreported order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Usha Devi vs. Rijwan Ahmad and Ors delivered on 17.1.2008.