ANJUM KAUSAR KHAN Vs. RASHIDAN
LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-191
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 29,2006

ANJUM KAUSAR KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
RASHIDAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) S. C. C. Suit No. 4 of 2004 was filed by the respondent in the Court of Judge Small Cause Court, Bijnor on 27-1-2004. Written statement was filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid suit on 27-5-2004. The cross-examination of P. W. 1 Sayeed Ahmad was recorded on 20-12-2004. Thereafter the respondent filed an amendment application dated 30-3-2005 vide paper No. 42-Ga by which following amendment was sought in the plaint by adding paragraph 6 (a ). ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... The petitioner is said to have submitted objection dated 30-3- 2005 to the aforesaid amendment inter alia, that the amendment has been filed with inordinate delay. The trial Court vide order dated 3-5-2005 allowed the amendment application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 3-5-2005 the petitioner filed revision No. 12 of 2005 before the District Judge, Bijnor on 16-5-2005. The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision of the petitioner by order dated 26-7-2006 holding that it was not maintainable and confirmed the order dated 3-5-2005 passed by the trial Court. It further directed that the parties shall appear before the trial Court on 18-8- 2006 and the original record of the trial Court was directed to be sent back for proceeding further in the case.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner contends that amendment was not maintainable in view of proviso of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that - "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 : 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. " Order VI, Rule 17 of the C. P. C. was amended by Amendment Act, 2002 with effect from 1-7-2002.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.