Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3973 (ALL)

Ram Sagar Gupta v. Arvind Kumar Rastogi

2015-12-14

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2015
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. – Mr. R.K. Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and perused the records. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.11.2015, whereby the application 83-Ka-1 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment in written statement which was filed before the Trial Court by petitioner in Rent Appeal has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that P-A case under Section 21 (1) (a) of Rent Control Act for release of the shop in question was filed by opposite party no.1 before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner being defendant had filed written statement. The said case was decided vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2013. The petitioner being tenant and feeling aggrieved against the said judgment has filed Rent Appeal which has been registered as Rent Appeal No.1 of 2013. An application for impleadment has been preferred by Lalji Gupta brother of the petitioner which was rejected vide order dated 12.08.2015, against which Writ Petition No.6064 (MS) of 2015 has been preferred, which is pending before this Court. The petitioner has moved an application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. as it is necessary to amend the written statement which was filed before learned Trial Court as certain relevant material facts could not be mentioned at the time of filing of written statement. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order without properly considering the contentions raised in this regard. 5. Mr. R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, on the other hand, submits that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. filed by petitioner was not maintainable as the proposed amendment in the written statement does not show that they were not in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of written statement and in spite of due diligence they could not be brought on record. It is also submitted that the rent appeal is at the stage of final hearing. The written arguments have been submitted by the parties and the matter is fixed for judgment. The present writ petition has been filed in order to delay the proceedings. 6. It is also submitted that the rent appeal is at the stage of final hearing. The written arguments have been submitted by the parties and the matter is fixed for judgment. The present writ petition has been filed in order to delay the proceedings. 6. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. The application 83-Ka-1 is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The said application does not show that the proposed amendment were not in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the written statement. They cannot be said to be new facts which have come to the knowledge of the petitioner at the appellate stage. Oder 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. clearly indicates there is bar in the amendment of pleadings and 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. 8. In the instant case the amendment application has been preferred at the appellate stage seeking amendment in the written statement filed before the Trial Court and the amendments proposed do not indicate that in spite of due diligence they could not have been brought on record at the time of filing of written statement. As such, I do not find any reason for granting indulgence, at this stage. 9. It is to be noted that the appeal is at the stage of final hearing and the case is fixed for judgment. 10. The writ petition, as such, being devoid of merit is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.