- (1.) This petition is a sheer waste of time as the petitioners do not wish to put the petitioners' money where the petitioners mouth is.
(2.) The petitioners sought an extreme indulgence in applying for amendment of the plaint in the year 2012 in a suit filed in the year 1991. It is the admitted position that the trial had commenced long before the application for amendment was filed. The petitioners say that grave injustice has been done to the petitioners in the trial court disallowing the real matter in controversy between the parties being brought on record. Nothing has been said as to what prevented the petitioners from applying earlier. The petitioners seem to be oblivious to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. In the event the petitioners are serious, the petitioners can apply afresh before the trial court upon depositing the sum of Rs.5 lakh as security since the property in question is of considerable value. If such security is deposited and the application is made within a fortnight from date, the trial court will consider the same in accordance with law notwithstanding the rejection of the previous application. If the amendment application is allowed, the deposit will be kept in an interest -bearing account and to the credit of the suit. If the petitioners herein succeed in the suit the deposit will be returned together with all the accrual thereto. If the petitioners fail in the suit, the trial court will be at liberty to deal with the deposit in the manner the trial court may choose in accordance with law save returning it to the petitioners. CO No. 1159 of 2013 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
(3.) Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.;