Harbansh Singh And ORS v. Lallu Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22417 of 2014 ====================================================== Harbansh Singh & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Lallu Singh & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akhouri Vipin Bihari Shrivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 18-09-2017 Heard learned counsel Mr. Akhouri Vipin Bihari Shrivastava for the petitioner.

2. Perused the impugned order dated 10.06.2014 passed by Subordinate Judge-VII, Sasaram in Title Suit No.242 of 2006 whereby the learned court below rejected the amendment application filed by the defendants-petitioners for amendment in the written statement.

3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that admittedly the evidence of the plaintiffs has already been closed and at this stage the amendment application was filed by the defendants-petitioners seeking amendment in the written statement introducing new facts in the case. The court below rejected the said application on the ground that the evidence of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.22417 of 2014 (2) dt.18-09-2017 plaintiffs has already been closed.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Guruwara Vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Ltd. & Anr. (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 364 has held that in case of amendment after commencement of trial, particularly after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise in such an event, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy conditions prescribed in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 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 commencement of trial and the Court is satisfied with their explanation, amendment can be allowed even after commencement of the trial and not otherwise.

In the present case, from perusal of the amendment application, it appears that the only explanation for delay given by the petitioners is that inadvertently the amendment sought for could not be brought. In my opinion, this 'inadvertently' is not a ground which can be said that in spite of due diligence the amendment could not have been brought earlier prior to the commencement of the trial.

5. In view of the factual and legal position, I do not

Patna High Court CWJC No.22417 of 2014 (2) dt.18-09-2017 find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U