RAMESH CHAND Vs. CIVIL JUDGE SD KARAULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants, challenging the order dated 26.2.2007, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karauli, district Karauli,(hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), whereby the trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners seeking amendment in the written statement under O. VI R. 17 of C.P.C.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Rajneesh Gupta for the petitioners that the amendment sought being pure question of law pertaining to the jurisdiction and trial Court having framed the issue as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not, no prejudice was going to be caused to the respondent-plaintiff if the amendment as sought was granted by the trial Court. According to him, the suit of the respondent plaintiff was barred under the Provisions contained under Section 58 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act(for short the Act)and though the contention was raised by the petitioners-defendants in the written statement as regards jurisdiction, it was not specifically contended as to under which provision of law the Court did not have the jurisdiction and, therefore, the amendment was sought by the petitioners in the written statement. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff pressing into service the amended proviso to O.VI R.17, submitted that the petitioner had failed to point out as to why such an issue, which could have been raised prior to commencement of the trial, was not raised at the relevant stage. According to him the trial has already commenced and no lenient view should be taken in the matter. He also submitted that the Court has also limited jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and in absence of any gross prejudice being shown by the petitioners, the petition should not be entertained.

(3.) In the instant case, it appears that the respondent plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioners-defendants pertaining to the plot in question belonging to the respondent No. 3 Co-operative Samiti. In the said suit the petitioners-defendants had already filed the written statement in the year 2002 and thereafter the Court had framed the issues on 21.4.2005. One of the issues framed by the trial Court was, whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Thereafter the trial of the suit has also commenced. At the stage of cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent plaintiff, the petitioners submitted the application under O.VI R.17 C.P.C. seeking amendment for incorporating Para No. 4-A, in their written statement, by which the petitioner had proposed to contend that the Court had no jurisdiction under Section 58 of the said Act. The said application having been made after the commencement of trial and without showing any reason as to how inspite of due diligence, the petitioners could not raise such issue in the written statement, the trial court rejected the said application by the impugned order dated 26.2.2007. It is true that prior to the amendment in the proviso to O. VI R. 17, the amendments in the pleadings were being granted quite liberally by the Courts, however, in view of the amendment in the said proviso, the party is required to show the reason as to why despite the due diligence the issue sought to be raised in the amendment was not raised earlier. In the instant case, no such reason having been shown by the petitioners, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application seeking amendment in the written statement. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, this Court exercising limited jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the same.