Petitioner challenged the Sub-Judge's refusal to allow amendment of written statement filed post-trial commencement. Court dismissed petition, citing failure to demonstrate due diligence required under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC.
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 MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1649 of 2019
======================================================
Bino Rai @ Bino Mahto Son of late Ramphal Rai, Resident of VillageGangraho, P.O.- Gangraho, P.S. Bakhri, District- Begusarai.
... ... Defendant-Petitioner
... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 26-11-2019
The present petition has been filed “for quashing the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by Sri Kumar Rishikesh, Sub-Judge, Bakhri, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 76 of 2008 by which the learned Court has rejected application of petitioner dated 11.06.2018 filed under Order-VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement”.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that the learned court below has mechanically rejected the amendment petition without appreciating that amendments of formal and minor nature were being sought and would not have materially impacted the course of proceeding.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1649 of 2019 dt.26-11-2019 2/2
Court is unable to find any illegality in the impugned order. The proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 statutorily mandates that “ no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” In the present case, the suit is of the year 2008 and it is not in dispute that trial has already commenced. The defendant-petitioner failed to demonstrate the exercise of due diligence in attempting to file his written statement within the statutory time. No satisfactory plea in this regard has been made also before this Court at the time of hearing.
(Vikash Jain, J)
Ibrar//-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date | 02.12.2019 |
| Transmission Date | N.A. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an amendment application filed after the commencement of trial can be allowed absent due diligence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bino Rai @ Bino Mahto
Yogendra Prasad Singh
Binod Prasad Singh
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
