UMESHWAR PANDEY, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist-applicant.
(2.) THIS revision challenges the order dated 14-8-2006 whereby the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the pleadings in written statement has been rejected by the Court below. A suit against the petitioner for recovery of rent and damages and his ejectment from the premises in question was filed. The suit was contested and written statement has been filed long back. The trial of the suit also commenced and the evidence of the plaintiff-opposite party has already been concluded. The evidence of the applicant defendant had started and the defendant was in the process of cross-examination when this application for amendment of the pleadings was moved by him. It was admitted in the written statement that the defendant though had taken the premises in question from the plaintiff-landlord on monthly rent of Rs. 1,800/- but he vacated the same in the month of May, 1998. Thereafter, there was some partition in the family of the plaintiff-landlord whereafter some part of the building in question fell in the share of other brother of the plaintiff from whom the defendant again took it on monthly rent of Rs. 600/. These facts even though were pleaded in the written statement, the present amendment application was moved giving further details of measurement and other things of that building and prayer has been made to incorporate two new paragraphs in the pleadings of the defendant. The Court below has rejected this prayer on the ground that the applicant revisionist in spite of the fact that the trial in the case had already commenced, had been trying to delay the disposal of the case on one or the other pretext and in the process an earlier amendment application had also been given, which was though allowed, the present one could not be entertained. It has simply been made to further delay the final disposal of the case. The case is pending for the last over eight years waiting for its disposal.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel while referring to the proviso attached to Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. has emphasised that the trial in the case has not yet commenced. He has cited the case law of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors., 2005 (2) AWC 1490 (SC), giving reference to paragraph-14 of the judgment. It has been stressed that the definition of the trial, as given by the apex Court, does not include the recording of evidence in the case and therefore, in the present suit the trial has not yet commenced.;