Punjab-Haryana High Court
Aditya Goel vs Smt. Jai Kishori Bhat And Another on 30 August, 2010
Civil Revision No. 5498 of 2010 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5498 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.08.2010
Aditya Goel
....Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Jai Kishori Bhat and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement, after commencement of trial, has been declined.
The petitioner wanted to amend paras No.3, 8, 14 and 20 of the written statement, and further to take a plea, that the suit was bad for want of locus standi.
The ground on which the amendment sought was, that the party could not be allowed to suffer for the mistake of previous counsel, as he had not drafted the written statement properly.
The learned trial Court dismissed the application, by placing reliance on proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars the amendment of pleadings with regard to the facts which Civil Revision No. 5498 of 2010 (O&M) -2- were within the knowledge of the party seeking amendment, or which could be known by due diligence.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 has laid down, that the Court had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment after commencement of trial.
In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 30, 2010 R.S.