Mansharam Ivne vs Chhannu And Ors.

This petition is directed against the order dated 03.08.2019 (Anneuxre P-5), passed by Third Additional Civil Judge Class I to Ist Civil Judge Class I, Betul in RCSA 22000011/2015, whereby the application preferred by the defendant No.1/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. was dismissed.

Assailing the order, Ms. Pooja Gajra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment is based on subsequent events. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has erred in rejecting the said application.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that defendant No.1/petitioner has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for incorporating the amendment regarding the sale deeds dated 19.04.2011 and 30.11.2011, stating that by these two sale deeds, the plaintiff has already sold the land, hence prima facie the suit is not maintainable.

On perusal of the record, it appears that the trial has commenced and the suit is fixed for evidence of the parties. The plaintiff's evidence has already been recorded, when the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. was filed by the defendant No.1/petitioner.

Once the trial has commenced, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. comes into play. In (2006) 12 SCC 1 Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, wherein the Supreme Court has held thus :-

"55. We have carefully perused the pleadings and grounds which are raised in the amendment application preferred by the appellants at Ex. 95. No facts are pleaded nor any grounds are raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence these matters could not be raised by the appellants. Under these circumstances, the case is covered by proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 and, therefore, the relief deserves to be denied. The grant of amendment at this belated stage when deposition and evidence of three witnesses is already over as well as the documentary evidence is already tendered, coupled with the fact that the appellants' application at Exh. 64 praying for recasting of the issues having been denied and the said order never having been challenged by the appellants, the grant of the present amendment as sought for at this stage of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the contesting respondents original plaintiffs and hence it is in the interest of justice that the amendment sought for be denied and the petition be dismissed.

In the present case, it is reflected from the record that earlier the plaintiff has tried to bring these two sale deeds on record, however, the said application has been rejected by order dated 12.08.2015. Hence, these two documents already produced by plaintiff were in the knowledge of the defendant No.1/petitioner since 2015. The petitioner has filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. in the year 2019. He is unable to show as to why such amendment could not be proposed earlier. Moreover, defendant No.1 has not made any pleading in this regard in his written statement nor has filed any counter claim challenging the same. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.1/petitioner.

This petition being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.