The Patna High Court dismissed an appeal seeking amendment of pleadings after trial, holding that without an explanation satisfying due diligence under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the impugned order rejecting the application must stand.
The civil miscellaneous application is dismissed without any interference with the impugned order.
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.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1605 of 2016 (2) dt.16-01-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1605 of 2016
====================================================== Abdul Samad Khan .... .... Appellant/s Versus Serajuddin Khan & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER
2 16-01-2017 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the impugned order dated 17.11.2016 passed by Sub Judge 11, Gopalganj in Title Suit No.80 of 2015 whereby the learned Court below has rejected the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner at the stage of argument of the suit.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara vs. S.K.Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and Another, (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 364 has held that “however, in case of amendments after the commencement of trial, as in the present case particularly after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such an event, it is incumbent on the part of the court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. If the parties to the proceeding are able to satisfy the court that in spite of due diligence they could not raise the issue
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1605 of 2016 (2) dt.16-01-2017 2
before the commencement of trial and the court is satisfied with their explanation, amendment can be allowed even after commencement of the trial and not otherwise.”
In the present case, admittedly, no explanation has been given by the petitioner regarding proviso to order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. and the court below finding no explanation has held that since the due diligence has not been shown by the plaintiff, has rejected the amendment application.
In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the amendment application can be allowed after completion of evidence when no explanation regarding due diligence is given.
Whether the civil miscellaneous application should be dismissed when the court below found no explanation for lack of due diligence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajkumar Gurawara vs. S.K.Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and AnotherApplied¶6
Rajkumar Gurawara vs. S.K.Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and Another, (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 364
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Samad Khan
Serajuddin Khan
Mungeshwar Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
