Gulshan Kumar vs Chander Bhan

J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial court dated 8th January, 1987 whereby application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

When the suit was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, the defendant petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement whereby he wanted to plead that tenancy starts from the 10th of every month and ends on the 9th of the following month and not from the 1st of every month and ends on the last day of that month. The application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the same with the observations, ''Moreover, he should have taken a specific stand in his written statement which he failed to do. The case is now at the stage of rebuttal and arguments. This also shows that application has been filed to delay the proceedings. There is no dispute that the amendment of the applicant/defendant can be allowed at any stage, yet under the circumstances of this case, the proposed amendment, if allowed, shall cause irreparable loss to the respondent/plaintiff, who cannot be compensated with costs because he has already led the evidence to prove his case.

The Learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that merely delay by itself was no cause to disallow the amendment and therefore, the trial court dismissed the application illegally.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, 1 do not find any merit in this petition. There is absolutely no explanation given in the application, seeking amendment to the written statement, as to why this plea, which was available to the defendant earlier was not taken originally. Moreover, the plea is not such which is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. It appears that the application has been filed to delay the proceedings, because then tenant is in occupation of the demised premises and the suit is pending since April, 1985.

It may be observed that there is general notion that the pleadings can be allowed to be amended at any stage without there being any explanation for the delay in seeking the said amendment. No party is entitled to seek amendment of the pleadings, as a matter of right. Under order VI Rule 17 of the CPC the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as maybe necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Thus, the touch-stone is that the amendment sought to be made must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Unless this test is fulfilled, no amendment can be allowed. At the same time if the court finds that the application was not bona fide as it was being made to delay the proceedings, then the party cannot claim that the amendment should be allowed even though the application may have been filed after long time. Of course, when the court finds that the amendment is necessary, in that situation, the delay by itself will not stand in its way, but the party cannot plead that he is entitled to the amendment of the pleadings even though there is no cogent explanation for the delay in making the said application.

In this view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.