Delhi District Court
Scj No. 612462/16 vs Mohd. Ruldu And Ors. Vii (2012) Slt 295 In on 19 July, 2016
SCJ No. 612462/16.. 19.07.2016
At 4.00 PM Present ; None.
Vide this Order I will dispose off an application U/o 6 rule 17 CPC moved on behalf of plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint.
In brief the facts are that this is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from terminating her services and also from dispossessing her from the residential quarter. Plaintiff is also seeking direction to the defendants for releasing payment of her salary alongwith other benefits and interest since January, 2005, among other reliefs including that of damages. When the matter was pending on plaintiff evidence, this application has been moved.
Through this application, plaintiff seeks amendment of her plaint on the ground that she is a layman and has proceeded her case personally so she was not aware of the fact that she could not go beyond her pleadings in her evidence by way of affidavit. As per the plaintiff, inadvertently she could not mention some relevant and necessary facts related to the case at the time of filing of plaint however those facts are very much relevant for the just adjudication of the present suit and the relevant documentary evidence is already on record qua those facts. Accordingly, she is seeking addition of para no 13 (a) to 13 (g) in her plaint. Further contends that if the amendments are not allowed she will suffer irreparable loss. Plaintiff has relied on judgment in the case titled 2 as Abdul Rehmani vs Mohd. Ruldu and Ors. VII (2012) SLT 295 in support of her contention.
Reply has been filed by defendant no.1 to the said application wherein it is stated that plaintiff is in a habit of filing one application after the other without getting the earlier one disposed off and is deliberately and intentionally wasting the time of the court. It is settled law that no amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial, so application ought to be dismissed. It is further stated that plaintiff has filed three affidavits of evidence dated 13.11.2009, 11.02.2014 and 19.02.2016 in her examination. She has also previously filed three applications for allowing her to lead evidence, file additional evidence or to file file fresh affidavit but despite these efforts she has not been able to lead her evidence.
It is further stated that plaintiff is not bringing any fresh or new facts before the court through this application. The facts which are now sought to be brought on record have been in the knowledge of plaintiff since the date of inception of present case. Furthermore, prior to this application plaintiff had sought amendment of her original plaint many a times at regular intervals so as to fill up the lacuna in her case and so cannot be allowed to amend her suit again. Other averments made in the application are denied and prayer is made for dismissal of the application.
I have heard arguments from both sides and perused the record.
At the outset it is pertinent to reproduce the provision of order 6 rule 17 CPC which are as follows :
3 The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no amendment can be allowed after the trial is commenced unless the court come to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party cannot raise the matter before commencement of law.
Though it is settled proposition of law that all such amendments which are necessary for the determining of real question of controversy between the parties should be allowed provided it does not change the nature of the suit, however at the same time, after commencement of trial, the court has also to arrive at a conclusion that inspite of due diligence, party seeking amendments could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, before allowing amendment.
Coming to the fact of the present case, perusal of the record shows that plaintiff has previously moved four applications seeking amendment of her plaint U/o 6 Rule 17 CPC which were disposed off on different dates vide orders dated 09.04.2008, 12.05.2011, 03.05.2012 and 12.04.2013. Furthermore, three applications including application dated 13.08.2010, 04.06.2011 and the last application filed in the year 2012, were moved even after framing of issues and filing of first affidavit in evidence dated 13.11.2009 by the plaintiff. This shows So, that plaintiff is in a habit of moving one application after the other seeking amendment of her plaint in a routine manner.
4 One of the contentions taken by the plaintiff in her application is that she is a layman and not well conversant with the law, so she was not aware of legal procedure. However perusal of record shows that plaintiff has been provided with legal aid counsel when she was not able to engage her private counsel. Despite that, she had been preparing her applications on her own and filing the same even without discussing it with her counsel. This fact has been observed by this court in the Order dated 21.04.2016 as well as by the Ld. predecessor in her Order dated 03.05.2012, when it was brought to the notice of the court by her counsel. Under such circumstances, when plaintiff does not lay trust even on her own counsel and has been moving applications of her own, she cannot be permitted to take the excuse that she is a layman and does not know the law.
Furthermore plaintiff has failed to show any due diligence on her part in moving the present application. She herself admits that her evidence was beyond pleadings due to which she is seeking amendment. Despite four opportunities being sought by her on previous occasions to amend her suit, she has not been able to come up with a proper plaint incorporating all the relevant facts. Now she has moved this fifth application seeking amendment which clearly shows that she has no intention to diligently pursue the suit and is merely intent on delaying it.
Infact perusal of record shows that plaintiff had also been given opportunity to file three affidavits in evidence which were filed on 13.11.2009, 11.02.2014 and 19.02.2016 but on one pretext or the other, she did not complete her examinationinchief till date. This also shows 5 that her sole intention is to delay the trial in some way or the other.
Furthermore, as has been rightly contended by the Ld. counsel for defendant, the facts which are now being sought to be incorporated in the plaint, are not new facts and also do not relate to any subsequent event happening after the filing of the suit. They were within the knowledge of the plaintiff even at the time of filing of suit. She amended her suit on many occasions previously but for reasons best known to her, she did not incorporate the said facts now sought to be brought on record. Plaintiff has miserably failed to show any plausible reason as to why the proposed amendments were not brought on record earlier through her previous amendment applications.
It is worth stating that no person can be permitted to misuse the procedure of law in this manner by moving one application after the other and thereby delaying the trial. If such a recourse is permitted there will be no end to litigation and suits will remain pending for years together which will ultimately cause general public to loose complete faith in the judicial system. The application being dilatory in nature and without any cogent reason or merits, the same stands dismissed subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/ to be deposited by plaintiff with the DLSA (W).
Put up on 27.08.2016 for PE by way of last and final opportunity as only the third and last opportunity remains for the plaintiff to lead evidence.
( A.K.
Agrawal) Civil Judge
01 ( West)/Delhi
19.07.2016