RAM KRISHNA PRADHAN Vs. BHAGAWAT PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner herein is the 10th defendant in the suit. THE plaintiff filed an application for framing of additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5 and the Revision Petitioner/10th defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement with counter claim under Order VI Rule 17.

(2.) CONCEDED by the parties, evidence has already been led to substantiate their respective pleadings.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Civil Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi, by his order dated 30.07.2010, the revision petitioner/10th defendant is only attempting to delay the disposal of the case as evidence has already been closed; the matter stood adjourned for arguments; and the date was already fixed for arguments on 20.08.2010. Learned Judge while refusing the amendment of written statement relied on a decision of the apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 to the effect that the revision petitioner/ 10th defendant now has to show that despite diligence amendment could not be sought earlier after the trial began. The learned Civil Judge also observed that the revision petitioner/ 10th defendant was unable to explain why he had waited till all the witnesses were examined and cross-examined.