Anwaar Hussain vs Vinod Chander Pandey

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The petitioner is the defendant/tenant in SCC proceedings registered as Suit No. 22 of 2014 seeking eviction of the defendant and arrears of rent.

The same is pending consideration before the Judge, Small Causes Court. The suit in question was instituted on 03.12.2014 wherein, in the description

of property, the property was defined as Building No. 5-515 Nawabi Road, Haldwani, District Nainital. In the said suit, the petitioner herein, has filed a

written statement on 25.04.2015 and the case was accordingly proceeded before the Court below. Later on, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an

application invoking Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint, whereby the plaintiff sought that in the description of the disputed

property, Shop No. 5-515 as described therein, may be permitted to be amended, as 5-514(50715) (new no. c-19-230). The said amendment was

opposed by the present petitioner/defendant alleging that the amendment happens to be in contravention of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17

of CPC, which contemplates that there have to be reasons that despite due diligence, the applicant to the amendment application could not have placed

the fact on record in the proceedings, in which, the amendment was sought. The said application filed by the plaintiff/respondent has been allowed by

the learned Trial Court by order dated 16.08.2018, which is impugned in this writ petition.

Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, after its amendment, do contemplates that the parties to the proceedings before the Court below ought to participate in

the proceedings with due diligence and in an event if any amendment is required in the pleadings, in that eventuality, the applicant to the amendment

application will have to show his bonafides to the effect that the necessary amendment could not be made despite due diligence, as required under

Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The diligence, which is contemplated under Order 6 Rule 17, is in relation to the pleading with regards to the subject

matter of a suit. If in the subject matter, which is a property, there is a minor amendment made with regard to the Municipal Number, which the

property bears, the same will not have any effect on the pleading or stand taken by the parties to the proceedings. As such, the interpretation given to

the said word ‘diligence’ may not be attracted in all eventualities as it has been canvassed by the petitioner herein.

Having allowed the amendment application by the order dated 16.08.2018, the learned Trial Court had only shortened the period of litigation by

getting the dispute decided in relation to the subject matter rather than making the entire exercise as a futile exercise and settlement of the scores

between the parties in the suit itself.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition and allowing of the amendment application by the learned Trial Court by impugned

order dated 16.08.2018, will not prejudice the right of the petitioner to raise all his counterpleas by filing an additional written statement.

Subject to the above observation, the writ petition will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.