SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, BandiKui District, Dausa, whereby the application moved by the plaintiffs-respondents under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been partially allowed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Order 6, Rule 17 CPC after trial has started, no amendment could be made in the pleadings. He further submits that the subsequent purchaser had already been impleaded as a party to the suit in the year 2009 and application regarding impleadment was moved in 2007 but no amendment was sought at that stage. Issues have already been framed and the case was listed for evidence of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the application for amendment has been moved belatedly with the sole purpose to delay the proceedings.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner relies on law laid down by this Court in the case of Ramniwas v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.: 2014 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1052 , wherein on account of delay in filing application for amendment, the application under Order 6, Rule 17 was disallowed. He also relies on 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC 505: Aalok Khanna v. Raj Darshan Hotel Pvt. Ltd. , wherein this Court laid down the same principle stating that defendant, who seeks to introduce amendment was having knowledge of the facts and after commencement of trial moved application at the appellate stage and therefore, was denied to move such amendment.;