1. This Chamber Summons has been filed by the Applicant who is the original Plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint as per the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons. The Plaintiff is the Liquidator of the Maratha Market People's Co-op Bank Ltd and who has instituted the present suit.

2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that after filing of the present suit, the Plaintiff learnt that certain documents are relevant to the subject matter of the present suit and controversy between the parties. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to amend the plaint by adding certain new facts which have now come to light and are important for the outcome of the present suit. It has been further stated that the Plaintiff only recently (i.e. sometime in March 2017), and during the course of investigations, came across certain information which indicated that the suit property was the ownership property of the Plaintiff bank (and which is now in liquidation). Accordingly, the Plaintiff made an application on 7th June, 2017 for the relevant land records and from these records it was revealed that the Plaintiff bank became the owner of the suit property pursuant to a deed of conveyance dated 27th March, 1980 executed between the Plaintiff bank and New India Assurance Company Limited. It is in these circumstances that now a declaration is sought that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of this Deed of Conveyance dated 27th March, 1980. A further declaration is sought that the agreement dated 27th May, 1983 executed by D.M. Mansukh (a director of the Plaintiff bank) is without any authorization from the Plaintiff Bank and is therefore not binding upon the Plaintiff and is fraudulent, invalid and null and void.

3. This Chamber Summons is opposed by Defendant Nos.1 to 3 as well as Defendant No.4. Both sets of the Defendants submitted that in the facts of the present case the Plaintiff has already filed its affidavit in lieu of examination in chief on 7th April, 2016. The present Chamber Summons for amendment has been lodged on 6th January, 2018. This being the case, both counsels submitted that the Chamber Summons for amendment cannot be allowed in view of the fact that the same was barred by the virtue of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. It was submitted by both counsels that since the trial had already commenced and no due diligence was shown by the Plaintiff that the facts and documents that are now sought to be brought on record could not have been brought before the commencement of the trial, the amendment application was barred. In this regard, they brought to my attention the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and more particularly the proviso appended thereto.

4. As far as the due diligence is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Defendants submitted that it was totally incorrect on the part of the Plaintiff to state that the facts and documents that are sought to be brought on record came to their knowledge only in March, 2017. In this regard, the Defendants brought to my attention recital (b) of the Deed of Conveyance dated 29th July, 2008 (Exhibit-F to the plaint) as well as the Annexure to the said Conveyance (pages 97 and 98 of the plaint) which is the property register card. This property register card refers to both the aforesaid documents dated 27th March, 1980 and 27th May, 1983. Looking to all this material, the Defendants contended that all these facts and documents were well within the knowledge of the Plaintiff even before the filing of the suit and hence there was no question of the Plaintiff stating that these facts and documents came to the notice of the Plaintiff only some time in March, 2017. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Defendants contended that since the amendment application was filed after the commencement of the trial and no due diligence has been shown by the Plaintiff as contemplated under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the Chamber Summons