The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should demonstrate due diligence in raising the matters sought to be introduced and should not seek to introduce a new and inconsistent case.

Judgment

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the Gujarat High Court rejecting the Special Civil Application No. 1380 of 2006 discharging the Rule issued thereon and vacating interim relief and rejecting the Civil Application No. 2213 of 2006 for interim relief. By the said special civil application, the appellants challenged the order dated 24.01.2006 of the Second Additional Senior Judge, Nadiad rejecting their application exhibit 95 in Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002 for leave to amend their written statement on the ground that the appellants had not been able to show in context or the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC that before the commencement of the trial, the appellants should not have raised the matter in spite of due diligence.

Concise facts and events:

3. The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 144 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge at Bhavnagar against the present appellants, inter alia, seeking a declaration that in view of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.05.2002, Defendant No.1 (appellant no.1 herein) having ceased to be the Acharya of the Vadtal Gaadi, is not entitled, by himself or through defendant no.2 (Present appellant no.2) or supporters from enjoying any of the privileges or rights in respect of Vadtal Gaadi and at any of the principal temples or Hari temples including the temples falling under the Vadtal Gaadi at Vadtal, Gadhada and Junagadh as well as within any of the Trust property and to further declare that the appellants/defendants have no right to nominate their successors as Acharya of the Gaadi. In the above-referred Suit, the appellant submitted an application contending that the Court at Bhavnagar has no jurisdiction. The said application was dismissed by the Civil Court. The appellants preferred civil revision application in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Court. To resolve the dispute between the parties, more particularly between the Board and Acharya, Honble Mr. Justice S.D. Dave (retired) was appointed as Arbitrator/Conciliator, whose appointment was accepted by all the parties. The High Court of Gujarat disposed of the Appeal from Order No. 284 of 2002 and civil Revision Application No.650 of 2002 and vacated the stay of the order dated 02.07.2002 of the trial court. Thereupon, the respondents herein withdrew the Civil Suit No. 144 of 2002 from Bhavnagar Court and the said suit was presented in the Court of Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), where it was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 190 of 2002. The said suit was subsequently withdrawn and the plaint was again presented in the Court of Civil Judge at Nadiad which was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs filed application for amendment of the plaint of Special Civil Application No. 156 of 2002 and also produced further documents vide list exhibit 25. The trial court granted amendment of the plaint and further dismissed the application of the appellants objecting the jurisdiction of the Court. The appellants preferred appeal to the High Court challenging the above order. The High Court admitted the appeal and finally dismissed the application for stay and directed the appeal to be placed for final hearing. On 31.01.2003, the new Acharya was appointed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the Resolution dated 15.05.2002. The appellants preferred special leave petition no. 3351 of 2003 before this Court challenging the order of the High Court. This Court modified the order of the High Court and requested Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court to ensure that hearing and disposal of the appeal takes place as expeditiously as possible as according to this Court an important question was required to, be decided in the matter. The High Court dismissed the appeal from Order No. 421 of 2002. SLP No. 1538 (Civil Appeal No. 3380) was preferred by the appellant no.