Manipur High Court
Athokpam Mangi Singh vs Smt. Athokpam Ningol Mayanglambam (O) ... on 15 May, 2024
[1]
SHOUGRA Digitally signed by
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA SINGH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
DEVANAN Date: 2024.05.15 AT IMPHAL
14:05:41 +05'30'
DA SINGH
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023
Athokpam Mangi Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Late A. Babu
Singh of Lanthabal Lep Awang Leikai, P.O. Canchipur, P.S.
Singjamei and District Imphal West, Manipur
... Petitioner/ Defendant
-Versus-
1. Smt. Athokpam Ningol Mayanglambam (O) Mangol Devi, aged
about 70 years (now deceased) of Mongshangei Mamang Leikai,
P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Singjamei and Imphal West District and her
LRs.
(i) Mayanglambam Manihar Singh, aged about 70 years, S/o
Late M. Mangol Devi of Mongsangei Mamang Leikai, P.O. &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West;
(ii) Mayanglambam Rajen Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o Late
M. Mangol Devi of Mangsangei Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West;
(iii) Mayanglambam (N) Hijam (O) Ibemnungshi Devi, aged about
62 years, W/o Hijam Raghumani and D/o Late M. Mangol Devi
of Chingamakha, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District;
(iv) Mayanglambam (N) Mongbijam (O) Nungshitombi Devi, aged
about 58 years, W/o Mongbijam Rajit Singh and D/o Late M.
Mangol Devi of Konjeng Leikai, P.O. Canchipur & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur;
(v) Mayanglambam (N) Aheibam (O) Ashalata Devi, aged about
46 years, W/o Aheibam Ojit Singh and D/o Late M. Mangol
Devi of Heiranggoithong, P.O. Canchipur and P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District, Manipur
2. Smt. Athokpam Ningol Konsam Ongbi Angoubi, aged about 75
years (now deceased) of Langthabal Lep Awang Leikai, Imphal,
represented by her LRs.
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
[2]
(i) Konsam Manihar Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Late
Konsam Ongbi Angoubi Devi;
(ii) Konsam Ahongjao Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Late
Konsam Ongbi Angoubi Devi;
(iii) Konsam Sumanta Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o Late
Konsam Ongi Angoubi Devi;
(iv) Konsam Ratan Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Konsam
Ongbi Angoubi Devi;
(v) Konsam Somorjit Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Late
Konsam Ongi Angoubi Devi;
All are resident of Langthabal Lep Awang Leikai, P.O.
Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(vi) Konsam Ningol Arambam Ongbi Radhe Devi, aged about 62
years, W/o A. Iboyaima Singh and D/o Late Konsam Ongbi
Angoubi Devi of Langthabal Mantrikhong, P.O. Canchipur &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur;
(vii) Konsam Ningol Thounaojam Ongbi Bino Devi, aged about 59
years, W/o Late Th. Mohindro Singh, D/o Late Konsam Ongbi
Angoubi Devi of Meijarao Makha Thounaojam, P.O. & P.S.
Wangoi, Bishnupur District, Manipur;
(viii) Konsam Ningol Athokpam Ongbi Sumati Devi, aged about 42
years, W/o A. Somendro Singh, D/o Late Konsam Ongbi
Angoubi Devi of Langthabal Lep Awang Leikai, P.O.
Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Respondents/ Plaintiffs
IN THE MATTER OF:
In the Judicial Misc. Case No. 59 of 2023,
Ref.: Original Suit No. 19 of 2012
1. Smt. Athokpam Ningol Mayanglambam (O) Mangol Devi, aged
about 70 years (now deceased) of Mongshangei Mamang
Leikai, Imphal West, Manipur and her LRs.
(i) Mayanglambam Manihar Singh, aged about 70 years, S/o
Late M. Mangol Devi of Mongsangei Mamang Leikai, P.O.
& P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West;
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
[3]
(ii) Mayanglambam Rajen Singh, aged about 66 years, S/o
Late M. Mangol Devi of Mangsangei Mamang Leikai, P.O.
& P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West;
(iii) Mayanglambam (N) Hijam (O) Ibemnungshi Devi, aged
about 62 years, W/o Hijam Raghumani and D/o Late M.
Mangol Devi of Chingamakha, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei,
Imphal West District;
(iv) Mayanglambam (N) Mongbijam (O) Nungshitombi Devi,
aged about 58 years, W/o Mongbijam Rajit Singh and D/o
Late M. Mangol Devi of Konjeng Leikai, P.O. Canchipur &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur;
(v) Mayanglambam (N) Aheibam (O) Ashalata Devi, aged
about 46 years, W/o Aheibam Ojit Singh and D/o Late M.
Mangol Devi of Heiranggoithong, P.O. Canchipur and P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
2. Smt. Athokpam Ningol Konsam Ongbi Angoubi, aged about 75
years (now deceased) represented by her LRs.
(i) Konsam Manihar Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Late
Konsam Ongbi Angoubi Devi;
(ii) Konsam Ahongjao Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Late
Konsam Ongbi Angoubi Devi;
(iii) Konsam Sumanta Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o Late
Konsam Ongi Angoubi Devi;
(iv) Konsam Ratan Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o Late
Konsam Ongbi Angoubi Devi;
(v) Konsam Somorjit Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o Late
Konsam Ongi Angoubi Devi;
All are resident of Langthabal Lep Awang Leikai, P.O.
Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
(vi) Konsam Ningol Arambam Ongbi Radhe Devi, aged about
62 years, W/o A. Iboyaima Singh and D/o Late Konsam
Ongbi Angoubi Devi of Langthabal Mantrikhong, P.O.
Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur;
(vii) Konsam Ningol Thounaojam Ongbi Bino Devi, aged about
59 years, W/o Late Th. Mohindro Singh, D/o Late Konsam
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
[4]
Ongbi Angoubi Devi of Meijarao Makha Thounaojam, P.O.
& P.S. Wangoi, Bishnupur District, Manipur;
(viii) Konsam Ningol Athokpam Ongbi Sumati Devi, aged about
42 years, W/o A. Somendro Singh, D/o Late Konsam Ongbi
Angoubi Devi of Langthabal Lep Awang Leikai, P.O.
Canchipur & P.S. Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Plaintiffs/ Opposite Parties
-Versus-
Shri Athokpam Mangi Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Babu
Singh, a resident of Langthabal Lep Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei, Imphal West District, Manipur.
... Defendant/ Applicant
B E F O R E
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner :: Mr. R.K. Tomma, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. H. Pari, Advocate
Date of hearing :: 01-02-2024
Date of judgment :: 15-05-2024
J U D G M E N T
[1] Heard Mr. R.K. Tomma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. H. Pari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The present revision petition has been filed with the prayer for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 12-04-2023 passed by the Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West - II in Judl. Misc. Case No. 59 of 2023
(Ref:- O.S. No. 19 of 2012) coupled with the prayer for directing the Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West - II to proceed with the trial of the suit
after allowing the amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner
in connection with the said original suit.
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
[2] The respondents No. 1 and 2, during their lifetime, filed the
aforesaid O.S. No. 19 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Imphal West against the present petitioner claiming the following reliefs:-
(i) A decree declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of
the suit land;
(ii) A decree declaring that the defendant acquires no right, title and
interest over the suit land;
(iii) A decree declaring the order dated 13-02-1980 passed by the
SDC/ Hiyangthang in Mutat5ion Case No. 18/SDC/IW(S)/1980
and order dated 15-09-1980 passed by the SDC/ Hiyangthang in
Mutation Case No. 294/SDC/IW(S)/1980 are illegal, void and
non-est and that has no binding effect to the plaintiffs;
(iv) A decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit land described
in Schedule "A" by demolishing the suit structures described in
Schedule "B" Schedule "C-1" and Schedule "C-2" of the plaint
and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs;
(v) Cost of the litigation; and
(vi) Any other reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper.
[3] The petitioner, as the sole defendant, filed his written statement
dated 30-01-2013 and as per record, the petitioner also filed a recast of his
written statement on 24-06-2015 thereby indicating that the petitioner
amended his original written statement filed on 30-01-2013. The said
written statement is an elaborate and detailed one and the main defence
taken by the petitioner in his written statement is that he purchased the suit
land from the legal heirs of the original owner of the suit land including the
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
present respondents No. 1 and 2 under an oral agreement and that he has
been living on the suit land along with his family members by constructing
his dwelling house and out house inside the suit land without any
interruption from any quarter.
[4] After about ten years from the date of filing his written statement
and when the suit was at the stage of final hearing, the petitioner filed an
application registered as Judl. Misc. Case No. 59 of 2023 (Ref:- O.S. No.
19 of 2012) before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West-II with a
prayer for allowing amendment of his written statement as proposed in the
said application. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner seeks to insert
a new line of defence in his written statement by stating that he had
acquired title by prescription by being in possession of the suit land to the
knowledge of the respondents/ plaintiffs for more than thirty years and as
such, the possession of the petitioner become adverse to the respondents
including their legal heirs and interested persons. In the said application, no
reason has been given by the petitioner as to why he could not approach
the court for amendment of his written statement before commencement of
the trial of the suit.
[5] The trial court rejected the amendment application filed by the
petitioner by passing the order dated 12-04-2023, impugned herein. The
reasons given by the trial court for rejecting the amendment application are
as under:-
(a) The case was at the stage of final hearing and the plaintiffs'
counsel had already submitted their written argument and that
written argument of the defendant was to be submitted by his
counsel before the amendment application was filed;
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
(b) The proposed amendment are not necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question of controversy between the parties;
(c) By the proposed amendment, the petitioner has set up new claim
of title over the suit land through adverse possession; and
(d) The proposed amendment could have been made part of the
written statement if there was due diligence on the part of the
petitioner and his counsel and that such amendment cannot be
allowed at the belated stage of final hearing of the case as there
was lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner and his
counsel.
[6] Mr. R.K. Tomma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the impugned order had been passed by the trial court by
ignoring the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding
amendment cited by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of
the amendment application and as such, the impugned order is arbitrary
and illegal and the same is a defective order passed in violation of the
settled laws. It has also been submitted that the trial court has failed to apply
its mind to the real facts and circumstances of the case at the time of
passing the impugned order and that the trial court has committed patent
or flagrant error and the impugned order had been passed perfunctorily on
wrong premises and as such, the impugned order is liable to be quash and
set aside. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that the
amendment of the petitioner's written statement as proposed in the
aforesaid amendment application are highly required to determine the real
point of controversies between the parties and the same will help the trial
court to do complete justice to both sides and that if the proposed
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
amendment is not allowed, the petitioner will suffer from irreparable loss
and hardship. The learned counsel, accordingly, prays for setting aside the
impugned order and for allowing the amendment of the written statement
as proposed by the petitioner in his amendment application.
[7] The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
amendment application was filed very belatedly and at the stage of final
hearing of the suit and that the petitioner did not give any explanation or
reason in his amendment application about the efforts made by him and his
inability to make the proposed amendment in his written statement before
commencement of the trial of the suit. It has also been submitted that the
trial court declined to exercise its inherent discretion and rejected the
amendment application filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was
lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner and his counsel in filing
the amendment application and as such, there is no ground for interfering
with the impugned order passed by the trial court.
The learned counsel further submitted that if the claim of adverse
possession as proposed amendment is allowed, it will amount to allowing
the petitioner to take contradictory pleas to his earlier claim of title over the
suit land by way of purchase, which is not permissible in law. In support of
his contention, the learned counsel cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of "Government of Kerala & anr. Vs. Joseph & ors."
Reported in AIR 2003 SC 3988 wherein it has been held as under:-
"21.9 Claim of independent title and adverse possession at the same
time amount to contradictory pleas. The case of Annasaheb
Bapusaheb Patil v. Balwant (two-Judge Bench) elaborated this
principle as:
"15. Where possession can be referred to a lawful title, it will not
be considered to be adverse. The reason being that a
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
person whose possession can be referred to a lawful title
will not be permitted to show that his possession was
hostile to another's title. One who holds possession on
behalf of another, does not by mere denial of that other's
title make his possession adverse so as to give himself the
benefit of the statute of limitation. Therefore, a person who
enters into possession having a lawful title, cannot divest
another of that title by pretending that he had no title at all."
This principle was upheld in the case of Mohan Lal v.
Mirza Abdul Gaffar (two- Judge Bench) -
"4. As regards the first plea, it is inconsistent with the second
plea. Having come into possession under the agreement,
he must disclaim his right thereunder and plead and prove
assertion of his independent hostile adverse possession
to the knowledge of the transferor or his successor in title
or interest and that the latter had acquiesced to his illegal
possession during the entire period of 12 years, i.e., up to
completing the period of his title by prescription nec vi,
nec clam, nec precario. Since the appellant's claim is
founded on Section 53-A, it goes without saying that he
admits by implication that he came into possession of the
land lawfully under the agreement and continued to
remain in possession till date of the suit. Thereby the plea
of adverse possession is not available to the appellant.
The Court in Uttam Chand (supra) has reiterated this
principle of adverse possession."
[8] In the case of "Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through LRs Vs.
S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited & anr." Reported in (2008)
14 SCC 364, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-
"12. In order to consider whether the appellant-plaintiff has made
out a case for amendment of his plaint, it is useful to refer Order
6 Rule 17 CPC which reads as under:
"17. Amendment of pleadings. 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 application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the
party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.
The first part of the rule makes it abundantly clear that
at any stage of the proceedings, parties are free to alter or
amend their pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose
of determining the real questions in controversy. However,
this Rule is subject to proviso appended therein. The said
Rule with proviso again substituted by Act 22 of 2002 with
effect from 1-7-2002 makes it clear that after the
commencement of the trial, no application for amendment
shall be allowed. However, if the parties to the proceedings
are able to satisfy the court that in spite of due diligence they
could not raise the issue before the commencement of trial
and the court is satisfied with their explanation, amendment
can be allowed even after commencement of the trial."
"13. To put it clear. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers jurisdiction on the
court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any
stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such
amendments seeking determination of the real question of the
controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made.
Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those
which are sought to be made after the commencement of the
trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case,
the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an
opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In
the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial,
particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of
prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it
is incumbent on the part of the court to satisfy the conditions
prescribed in the proviso."
[9] In the case of "Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh
Anand" reported in AIR 2008 SC 2234, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under:-
"8. In order to find out whether the application of the defendant
under Order VI, Rule 17 for amendment of written statement is
bona fide and sustainable at this stage or not, it is useful to refer
to the relevant provisions of CPC. Order 6, Rule 17 reads thus:
"17. Amendment of pleadings. - 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
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
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 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."
This rule was omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999. However, before the enforcement of
the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, the
original rule was substituted and restored with an additional
proviso. The proviso limits the power to allow amendment
after the commencement of trial but grants discretion to the
court to allow amendment if it feels that the party could not
have raised the matter before the commencement of trial in
spite of due diligence. It is true that the power to allow
amendment should be liberally exercised. The liberal
principles which guide the exercise of discretion in allowing
the amendment are that multiplicity of proceedings should
be avoided, that amendments which do not totally alter the
character of an action should be granted, while care should
be taken to see that injustice and prejudice of an
irremediable character are not inflicted upon the opposite
party under pretence of amendment."
"9. With a view to shorten the litigation and speed up the trial of
cases Rule 17 was omitted by amending Act 46 of 1999. This
rule had been on the statute for ages and there was hardly a suit
or proceeding where this provision had not been used. That
was the reason it evoked much controversy leading to protest
all over the country. Thereafter, the rule was restored in its
original form by amending Act 22 of 2002 with a rider in the
shape of the proviso limiting the power of amendment to some
extent. The new proviso lays down that no application for
amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of trial,
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. But whether a party has acted with due
diligence or not would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. This would, to some extent, limit
the scope of amendment to pleadings, but would still vest
enough powers in courts to deal with the unforeseen situations
whenever they arise."
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
"10. The entire object of the said amendment is to stall filing of
applications for amending a pleading subsequent to the
commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and the parties had
sufficient knowledge of the other's case. It also helps in
checking the delays in filing the applications. Once, the trial
commences on the known pleas, it will be very difficult for any
side to reconcile. In spite of the same, an exception is made in
the newly inserted proviso where it is shown that in spite of due
diligence, he could not raise a plea, it is for the court to consider
the same. Therefore, it is not a complete bar nor shuts out
entertaining of any later application. As stated earlier, the
reason for adding proviso is to curtail delay and expedite
hearing of cases."
"11. Keeping the above broad principles in mind, let us ascertain
whether the defendant has justiciable cause to file an
application praying for amendment of a written statement for
bringing an agreement dated 10-09-1982. We have already
referred to the fact that the plaintiff had approached the court
seeking a decree for mandatory injunction as early as on 1986.
We also refer to the fact that within a short duration i.e. in 1986
itself, the defendant has filed a written statement. Absolutely,
there is no whisper about the prior partition agreement dated
10-09-1982. No doubt, in the application for amendment, it was
stated that her son who is a Chartered Accountant all along was
looking after this suit and he died in the year 1998. It is also
available from the very same application that apart from her first
son, namely, Sunit Gupta, defendant has another son by name
Navneet Agarwal. Admittedly, the son who looking after the suit
was none else than a Chartered Accountant. In such
circumstances, if the alleged agreement dated 10-09-1982
between the plaintiff and defendant was in existence nothing
prevented her son, Chartered Accountant, to bring it to the
notice of her counsel and refer it in the written statement filed
in the year 1986. It is relevant to mention that in the reply, the
plaintiff has specifically denied the same and asserted that the
alleged agreement/partition deed dated 10-09-1982 is a forged
document and based on the same, the proposed amendment
cannot be allowed. It is also not in dispute and best known to
both parties the suit which is of the year 1986 came to be taken
up for trial only in 2004 and admittedly on the date of filing of
the petition for amendment, the trial was on the verge of
completion. It was brought to our notice that both sides have
closed their evidence and completed their argument, but only
at this stage the defendant filed the said application for
amendment of her written statement. As discussed above,
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
though first part of Rule 17 makes it clear that amendment of
pleadings is permitted at any stage of the proceeding, the
proviso imposes certain restrictions. It makes it clear that after
the commencement of trial, no application for amendment shall
be allowed. However, if it is established that in spite of "due
diligence" the party could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial depending on the circumstances, the
court is free to order such application. The words "due
diligence" has not been defined in the Code. According to
Oxford Dictionary (Edition 2006), the word "diligence" means
careful and persistent application or effort. "Diligent" means
careful and steady in application to one's work and duties,
showing care and effort. As per Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth
Edition), "diligence" means a continual effort to accomplish
something, care, caution; the attention and care required from
a person in a given situation. "Due diligence" means the
diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised
by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to
discharge an obligation. According to Words and Phrases by
Drain-Dyspnea (Permanent Edition 13A) "due diligence", in law,
means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible.
"Due diligence" means reasonable diligence; it means such
diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his
own affairs. It is clear that unless the party takes prompt steps,
mere action cannot be accepted and file a petition after the
commencement of trial. As mentioned earlier, in the case on
hand, the application itself came to be filed only after 18 years
and till the death of her first son Sunit Gupta, Chartered
Accountant, had not taken any step about the
so-called agreement. Even after his death in the year 1998, the
petition was filed only in 2004. The explanation offered by the
defendant cannot be accepted since she did not mention
anything when she was examined as witness."
"12. As rightly referred to by the High Court in Union of India vs.
Pramod Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. and others, (2005) 12 SCC 1, this
Court cautioned that delay and laches on the part of the parties
to the proceedings would also be a relevant factor for allowing
or disallowing an application for amendment of the pleadings."
[10] In my considered view, the principle of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments are applicable in the case
in hand. In the present case, the petitioner filed his written statement on
30-01-2013 and thereafter, the petitioner also filed a recast of the said
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
written statement on 24-06-2015 thereby indicating that some amendment
have been made in his original written statement and the petitioner could
have incorporated the proposed amendment at that time but he failed to do
so. After about ten years from the date of filing his written statement and
when the trial of the suit was at the stage of final hearing, the petitioner filed
the amendment application very belatedly and without giving any
explanation about the delay and his inability to file the said amendment
application before commencement of the trial. Taking into consideration
such relevant factors, the trial court refused to exercise its inherent
discretion as provided under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC
and rejected the amendment application on the grounds mentioned in the
impugned order.
In view of the above, this court did not find any ground or reason
for interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and
accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2023 Contd.../-
