WPMS/2031/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 3926 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No.2031 of 2021
                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Sachin Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

The provisions of Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. contemplates, that once an amendment has been permitted to be carried under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., then it ought to be incorporated in the pleadings within the time period as it has been prescribed under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C., which is extracted hereunder:-

"18. Failure to amend after order. - If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court."

Brief facts, which engages consideration in the present writ petition are that the petitioners, are the defendants in Suit No.39 of 2019 Mulki Singh vs. Janeshwar Singh and others, which stood decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents way back on 24.12.2010.

Being aggrieved against the said judgement and decree, directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the property in dispute, the petitioner has preferred a civil appeal being Civil Appeal No.10 of 2011 which is pending consideration, its during its pendency, the petitioner had filed an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking certain amendment in the written statement. The same was rejected. As against the order of rejection of the amendment application, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition, before this Court being Writ Petition No.676 of 2013 Virendra Singh vs. Ram Kumar and Others, which was ultimately partly allowed by this Court by the judgment of 27.11.2019, whereby the amendment application Paper No.15A was partly allowed and the amendment, which was sought to be carried in the written statement was permitted to be carried by the petitioner within a time provided therein in the judgment of 27.11.2019.

Despite of partially allowing of the writ petition, the amendment was not carried and actually incorporated in consonance to the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C., hence later on, the petitioner has filed an application Paper No.36 Ka 1 by invoking the provisions contained under Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking a permission, that the amendment thus allowed by the judgment of 27.11.2019, may be permitted to be incorporated in the written statement. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order of 08.09.2021 passed by the appellate court in a Civil Appeal No.10 of 2011. If the findings, which has been recorded therein are taken into consideration, the Court has observed, that despite of several opportunities having being granted to the petitioner to make necessary amendment in the written statement, which was permitted by this Court by the judgment of 27.11.2019, the petitioner himself has not availed the opportunity to carry out the necessary amendment and hence, the Court was constrained to observe that the petitioner, was not diligent in participating the proceedings, at an appellate stage in an appeal, which he has preferred against the decree of possession rendered against him for the handing over of the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff.

If the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 18, which has been extracted above, is taken into consideration in fact it does not give any latitude or a scope, as such for extension of time, if the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been allowed and if the same is not carried within the time period as prescribed therein under the provision contained under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. because if the language of the said provision is taken into consideration, in fact it creates an absolute embargo, that amendment if it is not carried within 14 days, as provided under law, the same would not be permitted to be carried thereafter, unless the time is extended by the Court. Unfortunate part is that there is nothing on record to show, that the petitioner had ever moved any application before the Appellate Court, seeking an extension of time to incorporate the amendment, beyond the time period provided under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. and hence if the rationale, which has been adopted by the Court while passing the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the C.P.C., denying to incorporate the amendment, which was permitted to be carried by the judgment of 27.11.2019, has been rightly rejected, as it goes strictly in consonance to the provisions and intentions contained under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. because a litigant to a proceeding cannot be permitted to abuse the proceedings, to keep a lis pending for an indefinite period and particularly when the petitioner herein is a judgment debtor of a decree, where he has been directed to handover the possession of disputed property to the plaintiff/respondent.

Since the application of the petitioner under Section 151 of C.P.C. was barred by the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 18 of the C.P.C. this amendment cannot to be permitted to be carried, hence, it has been rightly rejected.

I do not find any merit in the writ petition hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 28.09.2021 Arti