Chetna Singh vs Azuddi Bai

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing the interlocutory order passed on 17.10.2013 in Case no. 26-A/2013 by IV Additional Civil Judge Class II, Distt. Guna, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC preferred by the defendant/petitioner herein has been rejected solely on the ground that the same has been presented after commencement of trial and despite possessing knowledge about the subject matter of proposed amendment, the same was not brought forth earlier.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that the trial has not yet commenced, as after framing of issues the case was fixed for adducing of evidence by the plaintiff which has not commenced.

Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in case of Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar and Another, that wherein it is laid down that where amendment to the written statement is sought and the evidence has not yet commenced after framing of issues, the term ''commencement of trial'' employed in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC must be understood in the limited sense as meaning thereby the final hearing of suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments.

In the present case, amendment was sought in the written statement at a stage where issues were framed, but plaintiff''s evidence had not begun and therefore it cannot be said that the trial had commenced in its true sense.

Moreover, the law applicable to amendment of plaint on one hand and amendment in the written statement on the other are not governed by exactly the same principles as is held by Apex Court in case of Baldev Singh and Others Etc. Vs. Manohar Singh and Another Etc., and Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others, Pertinently these cases were relied upon in the said case of Sushil Kumar Jain (Supra). It was laid down by the Apex Court that the law governing the amendment of written statement is liberal as compared to law governing amendment of plaint. In the instant case, the amendment was sought in written statement at a stage when trial had not commenced and therefore there was no justified reason to reject the said prayer for amendment.

In view of the above, the order impugned herein so far as it relates to rejection of the application filed by defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, is set aside.

The application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by defendant no. 3 Smt. Chetna Singh is allowed. The petitioner/defendant no. 3 should carry out amendment in the written statement within a period of 30 working days from today and the trial Court thereafter may proceed with the trial.

With the above said direction, this petition stands disposed of sans cost.