High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Dal Chand & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 62314 of 2005  RD-AH 3259 (21 September 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.62314 of 2005
Dal Chand and another
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The plaintiff-petitioners after filing of the suit, when the suit was put to trial at the stage of recording of statements of the witnesses, filed an amendment application with the allegation that paragraphs 10-A, 10-B and 10-C may be added after paragraph 10 of the plaint. The facts narrated are those facts which were in the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit except the fact that the vendor of the petitioners had not informed the petitioners that the land is vested in the State by virtue of notification under Land Acquisition Act in the year 1977. The trial court relying upon the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, which is reproduced below, and after recording a finding that there is absolutely no case made out by the petitioners to exercise the discretion of the court in permitting the amendments as contemplated under proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, rejected the application and the revisional court affirmed the order of the trial court:-
"17.Amendment of pleadings. - 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 may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the courts below have rejected the amendment application only on the ground of delay and relied upon several decisions that delay cannot be a ground for rejection of amendment application.
In the present case amendment has been denied firstly on the ground that it is not covered by proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 and secondly the submission by the petitioners that these facts were not in the knowledge at the time of institution of suit is not correct.
In view of what has been stated above I do not find any force in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.