A writ petition challenging the rejection of an amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC due to a 22-year delay. The bench found no illegality in the lower court order.
Application to set aside lower court order dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6521 of 2013
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus 1. Janak Nandani Devi W/O Late Mahendra Prasad Singh R/O VillageRatanpur, P.S. And District- Begusarai
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar .
Patna High Court CWJC No.6521 of 2013 (2) dt.18-06-2013
2 / 3
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 16.2.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Begusarai, in Title Appeal no.8 of 2011 by which he has rejected the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners (defendants) for amendment of the written statement.
2 18-06-2013
It appears that the suit was filed in the year 1988 in which written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.7 (Petitioner no.1 herein). The suit was decreed on 14.12.2010. The defendant preferred an appeal vide Title Appeal No. 8 of 2011 in which he filed the said petition dated 7.1.2013 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending paragraph 16 of the written statement. The said petition for amendment came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.2.2013 which is under challenge in the present writ application.
Though delay in filing the amendment petition may not be a ground for refusing the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is obligatory upon the petitioners to state
Patna High Court CWJC No.6521 of 2013 (2) dt.18-06-2013
3 / 3
the reason for such delay in filing the amendment petition. Evidently, written statement must have been filed more than two decades ago on behalf of the defendants. There is no explanation as to what prevented the petitioners from taking steps for amending the written statement during all these years when the trial remained pending.
Exercise of power under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary in nature. From the impugned order I do not find that such discretion has been exercised unjustifiably against the petitioners. I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or material irregularity. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
Arun Kumar/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permits amendment of written statement after prolonged delay without sufficient explanation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anandi Choudhary
Janak Nandani Devi
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
