Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) Facts, in brief, of the present case are that plaintiff/Sri P.L. Bhargava(now deceased) has field a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, registered as S.C.C. No. 1 of 2000 (P.L. Bhargava v. Harihar Automobiles ). In said case, an application for amendment has been moved by the defendant/M/s Harihar Automobiles, rejected by order dated 9.11.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Lucknow. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision has been filed .
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record in order to decide the said controversy, it is necessary to state the following facts in brief. Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as exists before 1999 is quoted as under:- "Order 6, Rule 17 : "17. Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties." The aforesaid provision was omitted by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 Section 16 of the Amendment Act reads as follows: "16. Amendment of Order 6- in the First Schedule, in Order 6- *** ****** ****** ****** (iii) Rules 17 and 18 shall be omitted." The provision as it exists now after the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 ORDER6, Rule 17 "17. Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that 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." It is seen that before the amendment of Order 6, Rule 17 by Act 46 of 1999, the Court has taken a very wide view of the power to amend the pleadings including even the plaint as could be seen from L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR 1957 SC 357: 1957 SCR 438, SCR at 450 and Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja, (2002) 2 SCC 445: AIR 2002 SC 1003. By Act 46 of 1999, there was a sweeping amendment by which Rules 17 and 18 were wholly omitted so that an amendment itself was not permissible, although sometimes effort was made to rely on Section 148 for extension of time for any purpose. Ultimately, to strike a balance the legislature applied its mind and reintroduced Rule 14 by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1-7-2002. It had a provision permitting amendment in the first part which said that the Court may at any stage permit amendment as described therein. But it also had a total bar introduced by a proviso which prevented any application for amendment to be allowed after the trial had commenced unless the Court came to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. It is the proviso which falls for consideration.";