Dismissed¶17

Vishram v. Ram Dulari and Ors.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024/3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of written statement; Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure; proviso inapplicable where trial has not commenced; judicial discretion to amend pleadings at any stage; objections by plaintiff; condonation of delay in filing revision; Vishram v. Ram Dulari & Ors.; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; order dated 16.2.2024; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since trial had still not commenced, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure (allowing post-commencement amendments only upon a due-diligence finding) was not applicable in the instant case. ¶15

Vishram Vs Ram Dulari and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order dated 23.10.2023 allowing amendment of the written statement was erroneous, when the amendment was sought on facts stated to have come to the defendants' knowledge after filing of the written statement and despite the plaintiff's objections.

¶11

Court's answer

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure vests discretion in the court, at any stage of proceedings, to allow either party to amend its pleadings; the only stipulated exception relates to commencement of trial, which was not attracted here.

¶16

Key takeaways

No error was found in the impugned order dated 23.10.2023 by which the amendment application was allowed.ratio¶16
The reasons indicated in the affidavit supporting the condonation-of-delay application were found sufficient, and the delay in filing the revision was condoned.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision (defective) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, challenging the trial court's order dated 23.10.2023 whereby the application for amendment of written statement filed by defendants no. 1, 2 and 4 was allowed despite the plaintiff's objections. Held: on a pointed query, counsel for the revisionist conceded that trial had not commenced; accordingly the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable. Order 6 Rule 17 vests discretion in the court at any stage of proceedings to allow either party to amend its pleadings, the sole stipulation being the post-commencement-of-trial restriction, which was not attracted. Finding no error in the impugned order, the revision was dismissed. Separately, the delay in filing the revision was condoned as the reasons in the supporting affidavit were found sufficient.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13908

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 3 of 2024 Revisionist :- Vishram Opposite Party :- Ram Dulari And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Prashant Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

(I. A. No. NIL)

¶6

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the instant civil revision supported with an affidavit.

¶7

Heard Shri Shashwat Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶8

The reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application are sufficient.

¶9

On due consideration, the application is allowed and the delay in filing revision is condoned.

¶10

Order on the Revision

¶11

The instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.10.2023 by which learned trial court has allowed the application for amendment of written statement filed by the defendants no. 1, 2 and 4.

¶12

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the application for amendment could not have been allowed on the ground that in the application it had been contended that certain more facts have come to knowledge of defendants after filing of written statement which thus necessitated an amendment to be made in the written statement. Despite objections having been filed by the plaintiff the said objection has not been considered in a proper manner by learned trial court and has allowed the application for amendment by means

¶13

of the order impugned dated 23.10.2023 and hence the revision.

¶14

Upon perusal of the order passed by learned trial court dated 23.10.2023 when read in consonance with Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, which pertains to amendment of pleadings, the Court finds that the only stipulation as indicated in Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure is that no application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced unless the court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial.

¶15

Upon a pointed query being put to learned counsel for the revisionist as to whether the trial has commenced he states that trial has still not commenced. Thus the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable in the instant case.

¶16

Perusal of the Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure would also indicate that it is the discretion of the court at any state of proceedings to allow either parties to amend their pleadings. Thus once the discretion is vested in the court of allowing an amendment application, with the exception of commencement of the trial which exception is not attracted in the facts of the present case, consequently this Court does not find any error in the order impugned dated 23.10.2023 by which the amendment application has been allowed.

¶17

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the revision is dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 16.2.2024 J.K. Dinkar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishram v. Ram Dulari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishram v. Ram Dulari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs Additional Session Judge Court No 4 Unnao and 3 Others

State of U.P. through D.M. Kheri Vs the Addl. Commissioner Admn Lucknow and Others

Mohammad Islam Khan and Others Vs Addl. District Judge VII Sultanpur and Another

R.K. Shukla Vs Ravindra Srivastava

Vishram vs Ram Dulari and Ors.

Satyendra Singh Thru. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bachharawan Raibareli vs Addl. Director Admin. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko and 3 Others