The interest of justice may demand the allowance of belated applications for amendment and impleadment to prevent vulnerability to further litigation at the stage of execution.

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing Civil Revision No. 6019/2016 (O & M) filed by the Appellant herein. The aforesaid revision petition was filed against an order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 20.08.2016, vide which the Appellant's application for amendment of the plaint and for impleading another party to C.S. No. 950/2013 had been dismissed:

3. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are as follows:

Kamlesh Gupta, the Plaintiff in the abovementioned suit (the Appellant herein), had mortgaged shop bearing MC No. B-22/56 (15 'X 60') with Mangat Rai, the first Defendant in the suit (the first Respondent herein), for a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs vide a mortgage deed dated 22.09.2009. The Plaintiff later filed C.S. No. 950/2013 for possession of the suit shop by way of redemption on the payment of the aforesaid mortgage amount. The first Defendant in the said suit admitted the claim of the Plaintiff, but averred that he had permitted Rakesh Kumar, the second Defendant (the second Respondent herein), to use the suit shop to run a business. As per the first Defendant, the second Defendant had agreed to vacate the suit shop when the mortgage was redeemed, but had failed to vacate it at the time of redemption, which gave rise to the suit.

4. On the other hand, the second Defendant denied the validity and execution of the mortgage deed, and denied being in possession of the suit shop. As per the second Defendant, the father of the Plaintiff, who was the original owner of the suit shop, had inducted one Pawan Kumar as a tenant.

5. After the issues had been framed and the affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief of four witnesses for the Plaintiff taken on record, but before the cross-examination of the Plaintiff himself was done, he filed an application on 25.01.2016 Under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the CPC") to implead the aforesaid Pawan Kumar as the third Defendant, as well as to add a paragraph in the plaint to the effect that the said Pawan Kumar, who was the father of the second Defendant, had colluded with the Defendants to obtain possession of the suit shop.

6. The Trial Court dismissed this application on the ground that the facts stated in the application were already within its knowledge.

7. The Single Judge of the High Court, while deciding the revision petition arising from the dismissal of the application, also came to the conclusion that since the facts that, were sought to be added by way of amending the plaint were within the knowledge of the Plaintiff, his application was hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prevents a party from amending the plaint post the commencement of the trial, unless the Court concludes that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Notably, the Single Judge did not provide any reason for rejecting the prayer for impleadment, and proceeded to dismiss the entire application only by referring to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. It is evident that the High Court failed to examine the application on merits as far as the question of the impleadment of the aforesaid Pawan Kumar is concerned. In this regard, it is relevant to note that even as per the written statement filed by the second Defendant, the said Pawan Kumar is in possession of the suit shop, where he is carrying on a business in the name and style of 'Pawan Cloth House' as its sole proprietor. Additionally, though the second Defendant never mentioned in his written statement that Pawan Kumar was his father, it has now come on record that Pawan Kumar is none other than the father of the second Defendant. Furthermore, going by the written statement of the first Defendant, the second Defendan