[3] Learned advocate Mr.Sandip M.Patel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that the petitioner - original defendant No.4 is an illiterate person and under bona fide belief, the written statement is filed and later on, it has been realized that some part of written statement deserves an amendment, accordingly, an amendment application is submitted. Learned advocate has stated that in larger interest of justice, the same ought to have been considered and granted by virtue of object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that it is settled position of law that amendment in the suit can be permitted at any point of time so much so that even before the pronouncement of judgment also if the amendment touching to the root of controversy then ought to have been allowed. It has further been contended that while rejecting the application, no valid reasons are assigned much less cogent reasons, and therefore, this exercise of jurisdiction in brief is nothing but a laconic in nature, hence, the order under challenge deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has further been submitted that by virtue of earlier litigation as well, this amendment ought to have been allowed particularly when as soon as the fact of inadvertence is realized with immediate effect application is submitted. Considering this set of circumstances, it is desirable in the interest of justice, according to the learned advocate, to set aside the impugned order. No other submissions have been made.
