Ashok Kumar vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.

Heard.

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 18.1.2014 passed in Case No. 37-A/2013 by Civil Judge, Class-I, Raghogarh, District Guna. By this order, the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (Annexure P-5) is rejected by the Court below.

Shri Bohre, learned counsel for the petitioner, by criticizing the said order, submits that the amendment was necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter, rejection of amendment is bad in law. He submits that although the trial is at the stage of plaintiff''s evidence, the Court below has erred in rejecting the application. In support of his contention, he relied on Abdul Rehman and Another Vs. Mohd. Ruldu and Others, . No other point is pressed before this Court.

I have heard Shri Bohre at length.

The Court below has rejected the amendment application on the ground that trial has already commenced. The petitioner was well aware about the facts which became subject matter of amendment application. These facts were known to him at the time of filing of said application. No subsequent event or any reason which established ''due diligence'' is shown by the petitioner. In absence of establishing ''due diligence'', the application for amendment is rejected.

This is settled in law in view of judgment of Supreme Court reported in Vidyabai and Others Vs. Padmalatha and Another, that the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence. Admittedly, in the present case, the trial has already commenced. In Vidyabai (supra), it was held that after amendment and insertion of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the party needs to show ''due diligence'' when amendment application is filed after commencement of the trial. In Vidyabai (supra) it was held that if jurisdictional fact is established by showing ''due diligence'', the Court may assume jurisdiction to decide the amendment application. In absence of showing ''due diligence'', the Court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment application.

In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , the Apex Court opined in para 7 that the proviso curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. If application is filed after commencement of trial, it must be shown that in spite of due'' diligence'', such amendment could not have been sought earlier.

In Abdul Rehman (supra), the Apex Court opined as under:--

The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

(emphasis supplied).

In the light of aforesaid legal position, it is clear that unless jurisdictional point of ''due diligence'' is established, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment. The petitioner has utterly failed to establish the same before the trial Court. Thus, trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the amendment application.

The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. Interference can be made if the impugned order is without authority of law, it suffers from any manifest procedural impropriety or illegality. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. The Court below has taken a correct view in consonance with the judgments of the Supreme Court aforesaid. There is no ingredient on which interference can be made. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. No cost.