Karan Singh Through Lrs vs Balu Singh and Others

Mahesh Bhagwati

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners-defendants have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 26th July, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Beawar dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement of defence. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties ad-longum and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is pertinent to note that the amendment in the written statement of defence is found to have sought for at the stage when the case was pending for recording plaintiff''s evidence. The learned trial court has also categorically observed in the impugned order that the case was pending at the stage of recording the cross-examination of the respondent-plaintiff. Proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC envisages that no application seeking amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced in the suit. It is not that this legal provision is not in the know of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. Despite that he has endeavoured to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, deserves to be dismissed outrightly.

So far as the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 CPC are concerned, the petitioners can of-course made their defence appropriate to their character as legal representatives of the deceased defendant, as envisaged by rule 4 (4) of Order 22 CPC. For that, the petitioners are not required to seek amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed so as to cost of Rs. 500/-. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.