Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2596 (ALL)

Ghulam Ghaus v. Fatima Bibi

2010-08-26

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. - In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2010 passed in Rent Appeal No. 73 of 2009 by which the amendment application of the petitioner seeking to amend written statement filed by him before the court below has been rejected on the ground that the facts, the petitioner was seeking to bring on record, were already within the knowledge of the petitioner? and no subsequent event has taken place? which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of written statement, therefore, in view of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC at this belated appellate stage such an amendment cannot be permitted. The petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the aforesaid amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute and it is further pleaded that the court should be liberal in allowing the amendment application to amend the pleadings which have material bearing on the question involved. 2. For the aforesaid purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Baldev Singh & others Vs. Manohar Singh & another and Mulk Raj Batra & others? Vs. The District Judge, Dehradun & others. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the order impugned and the judgments cited by the learned counsel, the judgments were cited before the appellate court also? which has considered the same. 4. The proviso? to Rule 17 of Order VI provides? that no application for amendment shall be allowed? after the trial is commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence? the parties concerned could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the present case no such pleadings were raised before the Prescribed Authority? which are now raised. The appellate court? has also recorded a categorical finding that all the materials? that is being sought to be brought on record by way of amendment application by the petitioner were already within the knowledge? of the petitioner before commencement of the proceedings and, therefore, the petitioner himself has not acted? diligently? to bring the aforesaid facts on record at the time of commencement of proceedings. Now at the appellate stage fresh facts are not to be brought? before the appellate authority? of the petitioner before commencement of the proceedings and, therefore, the petitioner himself has not acted? diligently? to bring the aforesaid facts on record at the time of commencement of proceedings. Now at the appellate stage fresh facts are not to be brought? before the appellate authority? which were not before the Prescribed Authority and as such the same cannot be allowed at this stage.? 5. In my view, there is no error in the reasoning? of the appellate authority in rejecting the application for amendment moved by the petitioner. In view of proviso to Order VI Rule 17? of the CPC the petitioner cannot be allowed to incorporate? the amendments at this belated stage? which even otherwise appears to be only a dilatory? tactics adopted by the petitioner to somehow further postpone the proceedings? which cannot be permitted. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.