Delhi District Court
Sh. Ranbir Singh vs Sh. Anil Dogra on 4 June, 2011
M. NO. 32/06
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANAGWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SH. RANBIR SINGH ... Plaintiff
VS
SH. ANIL DOGRA ... Defendant
04.06.2011
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application u/o 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant for seeking amendment in the WS.
2. Amendment sought by the defendant on the ground that previous counsel prepared the written statement on behalf of defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 signed and verified the said WS with belief that the said WS was prepared as per facts briefed by him, however, due to inadvertence and misunderstanding/ miscommunication previous 1 M. NO. 32/06 counsel prepared the WS on the basis of different facts which were never told by the defendant no.1 to his previous counsel. On this ground defendant want to amend the para no.2,7 and 8 of the preliminary objections of the WS and also wants para no.4 would be deleted from the preliminary objections of the WS.
3. Reply to the application filed on behalf of plaintiff and stated that present suit is not maintainable because the issues have already been framed and trial has been commenced in the present suit which was filed in the year 1995. In the present case an appeal was filed by the defendant and thereafter same was remanded back long back in the year 2007. It is stated by the plaintiff that defendant had got sufficient time to file amended WS but defendant has not taken steps and stated that defendant filed the present application for delaying the proceedings of the present case.
4. Arguments heard on behalf of both the parties.
5. In view of the submissions made by both the counsel for the 2 M. NO. 32/06 parties. I am of the considered opinion that the present case was filed in the year 1995 and thereafter a judgment was passed in favour of plaintiff and an appeal filed on behalf of defendant and case was again remanded back. WS was filed by the defendant way back in the year 1996. As per Order 6 Rule 17 CPC it has been cleared that " Provided 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." It means if a party seeks amendment in the written statement same can be allowed only before the commencement of trial thereafter it can be allowed only it is proved that despite diligence of parties matter could not be raised. But in the present case trial not only commenced but also completed and thereafter an appeal was preferred. The matter was remanded back to this court. Defendant could not find out the defacts in his pleadings during the last 16 years. At this stage this case shows that present application has been filed on 3 M. NO. 32/06 behalf of defendant only for the purpose of filing up lacuna and delay the proceedings of this case.
6. Reliance placed upon "2009 AIR SCW 899". "Trial commence on date issues are framed. Amendment of WS can not be allowed after plaintiff has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief".
Reliance also placed on "AIR2005 SC 3353". Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous application which are filed to delay the trial. In view of the above, discussion present application is not maintainable, hence application for amendment filed by the defendant is hereby dismissed.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (SANJAY KHANAGWAL)
ON 04.06.2011 ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE (E)
KKD COURTS, DELHI
4
M. NO. 32/06
At 04.00 p.m.
Present: Ld. Counsel for both the parties.
Vide my separate order, the application u/o 6 R 17 CPC filed by the defendant is dismissed. Put up for arguments on the application U/o.39 Rule 10 CPC on 09.08.2011.
(Sanjay Khanagwal) ACJ(East)/KKD/Delhi 04.06.2011 5