Writ petition dismissed. The High Court held that filing an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after the stage of defendant's evidence is prohibited by the proviso to that rule. Trial Court correctly rejected belated application.
Application for amendment to written statement rejected; writ petition 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13575/2018
Bashir Kha S/o Sh. Ajeem Kha, Aged About 56 Years, B/c Musalman, R/o Vishtar Yojna, Raja Colony, Near Masjid, Nimbaheda, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Vyas
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment / Order
13/09/2018
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.05.2018 whereby petitioner’s application dated 24.04.2018 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment in the written statement came to be rejected.
The facts in brief relevant for the purpose of present writ petition are that the plaintiff – respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner – defendant.
The said suit came to be decided by the Trial Court. In an appeal whereagainst, the Appellate Court remanded the matter vide its order dated 28.11.2017 with the direction to decide the suit within six months.
(2 of 3)
[CW-13575/2018]
During the course of proceedings before the Trial Court subsequent to the remand, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking insertion of a paragraph in the written statement in the form of Para 4 A, interalia giving details/particulars of the payment made by him to the plaintiff – his father.
Learned Trial Court rejected the said application filed by the petitioner essentially observing that the application seeking amendment in the written statement has been filed belatedly and so also for the reason that if the same is allowed, it would unnecessarily protract the proceedings, for which the mandate of the Appellate Court to decide the suit within a period of six months would be violated.
Mr. Anil Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner impugning the order dated 30.05.2018 submitted that the amendment sought in the written statement was very necessary inasmuch as the petitioner has not only asserted the factum of payment, but also given details thereof as to whom such payment was made, while giving specific date(s).
He further added that the sole reasoning given by the Trial Court that it was required to decide the suit within a period of six months is unsustainable, as the amendment in question was necessary. He rested his arguments by contending that the Trial Court has erroneously rejected petitioner’s application, without considering the relevant provision of law and the need and relevance of the amendment sought.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court committed no error of law
(3 of 3)
[CW-13575/2018]
in rejecting the subject application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not in dispute that even after remand, when the matter has reached the stage of defendant’s evidence, he has filed the present application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment in the written statement. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly prohibits such amendment and thus the amendment in question cannot be permitted as the trial of the suit has begun, much prior to the date of filing of the application.
In view of the discussion foregoing, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 30.05.2018. The writ petition, is therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
Anurag/5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC filed after the stage of defendant's evidence can be permitted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bashir Kha
Shailendra Kumar
Vijay
Dinesh Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
