The SingleJudge dismissed the Writ Petition filed against the Trial Court's rejection of a balance amendment to the Written Statement in a regular suit for declaration regarding a Will Deed, holding the defendant failed the due diligence test.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
23.10.2015
WP-3727-13.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3727 OF 2013
Malleshi Gangaram Sonkamble .. Petitioner Versus Shri. Mohan Jagannath Sonkamble and others .. Respondents
Ms. Monali Patil i/by Shri. A. B. Tajane, for the Petitioner. Ms. Geeta Mulekar, for the Respondents.
CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 23rd OCTOBER, 2015
P.C.
1. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Learned 12th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Solapur, by which order the application Exh.54 filed by the Petitioner/original Defendant for amendment of the Written Statement came to be rejected. The suit in question being Regular Suit No.198 of 2011 has been filed for a declaration that the Will Deed executed by the father of the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the husband of the Plaintiff No.3 in favour of the Defendant who is the brother of the father of the Plaintiff is null and void.
2. The Defendant filed his Written Statement on 16.08.2011. In
1 of 3
BGP .
23.10.2015
WP-3727-13.doc
the suit issues have been framed and the trial has commenced in as much as the PW-1 is under cross-examination by the Defendant. It is at the said stage that the Defendant sought to amend his Written Statement so as to incorporate paragraph Nos.9(a), 9(b), 9(c), 9(d), 9(e), 9(f), 9(g), 9(h) and 9(i) in the Written Statement. The said paragraphs contain averments which are dating back to the year 1975 and revolving around how the Plaintiff was brought up by the Defendant and how the Defendant looked after the father of the Plaintiff i.e. one Jagannath Sonkamble. The said amendment was sought to be justified on the ground that the same is clarificatory in nature and does not change the defence of the Defendant. The Trial Court considering the stage at which the suit was namely the PW.-1 was under cross-examination of the Defendant held that having regard to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 the due diligence test would have to be satisfied by the Defendant, and considered the application on the said basis. The Trial Court having regard to the fact that the facts which are now sought to be incorporated by way of the amendments were within the special knowledge of the Defendant and that there was no plausible explanation as to why the said facts were not incorporated at the time when the original Written Statement was filed rejected the application on the ground that Defendant has not satisfied the due diligence test. In the said context, it is also required to be noted that in the
2 of 3
BGP .
23.10.2015
WP-3727-13.doc
application Exh.54 there is no whisper as to why the said amendments were not incorporated in the Written Statement as originally filed. As indicated above, the facts which are sought to be incorporated can be said to be within the special knowledge of the Defendant and therefore the Defendant was obliged to place the said facts on record at the inception. Obviously, the Defendant could not give any justification as to why the facts were not brought on record earlier as the said facts were within his special knowledge. A reading of the amendments disclose that the amendments sought cannot be said to be clarificatory in nature. The Trial Court was therefore right in coming to a conclusion that the Defendant has not satisfied the due diligence test. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for continuation of ad-interim relief which is operating in the Petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said prayer is rejected.
[R.M. SAVANT, J]
3 of 3
BGP .
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere when the Trial Court rejects an amendment to Written Statement as failing the due diligence test under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Whether late averments regarding past facts within special knowledge of the defendant are permissible as clarificatory amendments.
Whether ad-interim relief should be continued during the pendency of the Writ Petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malleshi Gangaram Sonkamble
Shri. Mohan Jagannath Sonkamble and others
R.M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court