RAM JIT Vs. RAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for cancellation being Suit No. 1132 of 1999 is said to have been filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-petitioner. The said suit came to be decreed against the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 16.10.2007. The defendant-petitioner then filed an appeal being Appeal No. 64 of 2007. In the said appeal the petitioner filed an amendment application on 28.10.2013 seeking amendment to add certain facts in the written statement filed by the petitioner in the said suit. The said amendment application has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to indicate as to how the said amendment was not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the plaint and rejected the application.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submtis that the amendment can be made at any stage and the appellate court has wrongly rejected the application relying upon the proviso to Rule 17ORDER6 CPC. According to him the said proviso was inserted only in 2002 and the suit was filed in 1999 and the written statement was also filed in the year 2000. As such, the said proviso will not be applicable in the pleadings filed before the amendment in Rule 17ORDER6 CPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Town Municipal Council reported in 2007 (1) AWC 627 (SC) . Paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: