Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1169 (HP)

Bimla Devi v. Amba Dutt

2018-06-27

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2018
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 16.04.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Una, Circuit Court Camp at Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in CMA No.300 of 2018 in reference petition No. 48 of 2009, vide which, learned Additional District Judge (I) has dismissed the aforesaid application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It is a matter of record that petition under Land Acquisition Act was filed as far back as in the year 2006. Documents appended with the petition suggest that subsequently the said petition was amended somewhere in the year 2010. 3. It is in the month of February, 2018, that an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment in the reply filed to the reference petition. The proposed amendments are manifold and justification given in the application as to why the proposed amendments could not be earlier incorporated is contained in para 3 of the application which reads as under:- “3. That at the time of filing the reply, applicant could not inform the detailed facts to his earlier counsel despite due diligence and now when the case is fixed for hearing the counsel for the applicant/LR No. 4(a) of respondent No. 4 inquired from the applicant detailed facts of the case, then the applicant/legal representatives No. 4(a) of deceased respondent No. 4 Bimla Devi disclosed the detailed facts of the case to his counsel, then the counsel disclosed that these facts are very essential and necessary for proper adjudication of the case.” 4. The application so filed stands rejected by the learned Court below, which, while rejecting the application, has inter alia, held that reasons so contained in para 3 of the application do not constitute due diligence, as change of counsel in itself is not sufficient cause to permit amendment in the pleadings. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. What is the scope within which an application for amendment of pleadings can be allowed by a Court is well defined in Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. What is the scope within which an application for amendment of pleadings can be allowed by a Court is well defined in Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage, but then in case any such application is to be allowed, in that eventuality, the court has to record its satisfaction that the proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the lis before it, and despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier. 7. Coming to the facts of this case, here is a case where proposed amendment was sought in the reply so filed to a reference petition. This court is not oblivious to the fact that prayer for amendment to a written statement/reply is to be construed liberally as compared to amendment sought in a plaint or a petition. However, the fact of the matter still remains that power conferred to allow amendment in pleadings has to be exercised judiciously by the Court. In para 3 of the application, the only reason assigned as to why the proposed amendment could not be earlier incorporated in the reply is that at the time of filing of the reply, earlier, respondent could not inform the detailed facts to the counsel concerned and thereafter, when the case was fixed for hearing, the applicant, who happens to be a legal representative of original respondent No.3, on inquiry from the counsel, narrated complete facts to him and counsel thereafter informed the applicant that facts which now stood narrated to him were necessary to be incorporated for proper adjudication of the case. This in my considered view as rightly held by the learned Trial Court, can not be said to be a cogent explanation and the same cannot also be termed to be an act of due diligence on the part of the applicant so as to allow him to amend the pleadings at a later stage. The reference petition was filed somewhere in the year 2006, which was thereafter amended also in the year 2010. The application to amend the reply has been filed in the year 2018 i.e. after 12 years of the filing of the main petition. The reference petition was filed somewhere in the year 2006, which was thereafter amended also in the year 2010. The application to amend the reply has been filed in the year 2018 i.e. after 12 years of the filing of the main petition. To me it appears that filing of the application was nothing but an abuse of process of law and the application apparently appears to have been filed in order to delay the adjudication of the main petition. 8. Be that as it may, as this Court does not finds any perversity with the order so passed by the learned Court below whereby the learned Court below has dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner for amending the reply, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of as dismissed.