Justice V.Eswaraiah dismissed a Civil Revision Petition. The bench held that the lower court correctly rejected an application to amend pleadings after the trial had commenced and evidence was concluded, as no due diligence was shown.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1964 of 2010
Between: D.Jayamma and 3 others
..... PETITIONERS
AND
M.Sanath Kumar and 6 others
.....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1964 of 2010
ORDER:
Petitioners herein are defendants 1 to 4 in the suit in O.S.1301/2003 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati . The respondents herein filed the said suit for declaration of title and for other reliefs. Written statement was filed by the defendants 1 to 3 which was adopted by the 4th defendant. Thereafter the defendants filed an application in I.A.35/2010 under Or.6 Rule-17 CPC seeking permission to get the written statement amended stating that the 4th defendant purchased the property bearing D.No.13-4-494 on 27.10.1997 and since then he was in possession of the said house and vacant site from 1998.
The said I.A.35/2010 was filed only after commencement of
trial. It is stated that the trial was already commenced and in fact the evidence was over and the matter was coming up for arguments and at the stage of arguments only the said application to amend the pleadings is filed. Under Or.6 Rule-17 CPC at any stage of proceedings either party is entitled to amend the pleadings but not after commencement of the trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. No reasons have been shown in the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants as to why the said plea was not taken in the original written statement. Absolutely, no reasons have been stated that such application could not have been filed in spite of due diligence before the commencement of the trial.
In view of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule-17 CPC I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly dismissed the said application.
The Civil Revision Petition is without any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J
Dated: 02.07.2010 Dsr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement can be entertained after the commencement of trial and after evidence is over?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Jayamma and 3 others
M.Sanath Kumar and 6 others
V.ESWARAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
