Suresh Gupta vs Manoj Dubey

Sheel Nagu, J.—Heard. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of the trial Court, by which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC preferred by the defendant seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected.

Learned counsel for petitioner has primarily contended that criteria for carrying out amendment in the written statement is much primary than the criteria for amendment applicable in the plaint, for which reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court Girraj Kishore Vs. Kamla Bai, and Arvind Kumar Nitin Kumari Memorial Trust Vs. Nimad Vanita Wishwa Khandwa, .

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that while rejecting the application for amendment in the written statement the trial Court was persuaded by the pleadings of the defendant himself to the extent that the defendant has admitted that suit accommodation was of the ownership of Kamla Bai and also that the defendant was the tenant of Kamla Bai and also that said Kamla Bai has given information to the defendant.

In this factual background of the pleadings, the Court held that now it was not open to the defendant to contend that the suit accommodation belongs to Nathuram. Trial Court also found that the proposed provisions in the amendment were contradictory to the basic pleadings of the defendant in the written statement and, therefore the trial Court found that attempt was made to challenge the basic nature of the case.

Trial Court also found that despite the case being adjourned on several occasions for examination of the witnesses of defendant, the defendant failed to examine his witnesses and, therefore the amendment application in question was termed to be an attempt to procrastinate the trial.

Trial Court has also held that by an order dated 19.07.2013, this Court had directed for conclusion of the trial within a period of six months and, therefore it was necessary that the trial be expedited.

The reason assigned by the trial Court does not appear to be such which could not have been taken in the given facts and circumstances of the case and also that it cannot be said that, in any manner, the jurisdictional limits set by the law have been transgressed by the trial Court. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out and, therefore this petition deserves to be and is thus rejected.