- (1.) The defendant-respondents no. 1 and 2 filed an application 41-Ka on 17.9.2011 seeking amendment in the written statement. In the application, it was pleaded that after the new counsel was engaged and he perused the written statement, he found certain clerical and typographical mistakes therein, which requires correction, to unable the court to decide all question in issue between the parties in an effective manner.
(2.) The application was opposed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the trial has commenced and thus, the amendment could not be allowed in view of the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC substituted by U.P. Act No. 22 of 2002. Certain other objections were also taken.
(3.) The trial court by order dated 12 March, 2013, rejected the application seeking amendment in the written statement on the ground that the amendment sought is hit by the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, inasmuch as, the respondents could have raised the plea before the commencement of the trial and it proves absence of due diligence on part of the defendants.;