Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE application filed by the petitioner -plaintiff Ramesh Kumar in the trial Court under O. VI R 17 CPC was dismissed by the Court of Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Udaipur on 17.11.2012 in Civil Suit No. 497/2010 (new number perhaps 300/2010) Ramesh Kumar v. Laxmi Lal. The petitioner has submitted that he had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction in the Court below in which he had pleaded that he had been always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour and during the course of proceedings, a dispute occurred between the patties regarding mode of payment because initially it was based on cheques and when the cheques were dishonoured because of the direction to stop payment made by the respondent to the concerned bank, then the petitioner was compelled to initiate the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, but latter on the matter was compromised and the transaction was agreed by the defendant -respondent and then complete consideration has been received by the plaintiff -petitioner. The plaintiff -petitioner has sought permission to introduce these subsequent events in the plant through the application under O. VI Rule 17 CPC, while was dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner has submitted that mode of payment is a material fact and is not just and evidence and so he should have been allowed by the trial Court to elucidate the subsequent events in his plaint and the petitioner should have been allowed to clarify his position in the matter. The petitioner has also submitted that on the basis of delay also, in filing the application under O. VI R. 17 CPC, his application should not have been rejected by the trial Court. The petitioner has submitted the following ruling in support of his arguments: - "Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., : (2012) 5 SCC 337."
(2.) ON the other hand, the respondents has relied upon the following rulings in support of his arguments: - "(1) Jasram v. Gajanram,, 2013 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 445. (2) M/s. Rajajeetu Builders & Developers v. M/s. Narayanswamy & Sons & Ors.,, 2010 CDR 250 (SC) (3) Kashi Ram v. Additional Dist. Judge & Ors., : 2010 (2) CDR 726 (Raj.) (4) Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Jagdish Mohan,, 2011.(1) CDR 354." One more ruling in the notice of this Court may be cited here which is much relevant for the matter in controversy: - "Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Proband Karini Sabha & Ors., : (1974) 1 SCC 675."
(3.) IN this case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the Court can take notice of subsequent events and allow the amendment application even when it is filed directly before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;