Amendments to pleadings are permissible to ensure justice, and acceptance of belated written statements is allowed in exceptional circumstances, provided reasons are recorded.

JUDGMENT :

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)

1. Albeit the instant revision application has been filed challenging seven (7) orders passed by Ld. 9th bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in connection with MAC Case no. 223 of 2015 but, Ld. Counsel, Mr. Haradhan Banerjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner only pressed three (3) orders i.e. Order no. 18 dated 31.07.2017, Order no. 24 dated 04.07.2018 & Order no. 31 dated 10.06.2019.

Brief facts:-

2. From the rival contention and argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the parties to this revision application, it appears that challenge in this revision application is the Order No. 18 dated 31.07.2017, Order no. 24 dated 04.07.2018 and order no. 31 dated 10.06.2019 passed in connection with Motor Accident Claim Case no. 223 of 2015 by the Ld. 9th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta.

3. By the Order no. 18 dated 31.07.2017 Ld. Trial Judge allowed one amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) on the ground that the proposed amendment was not inconsistent with the facts delineated in the claim application. Ld. Judge considered the proposed amendment on some subsequent facts i.e. expenditure incurred for the treatment of the claimant.

4. By the order no. 24 dated 04.07.2018 the Ld. Trial Judge refused to entertain the application for recalling the order dated 31.07.2017 on the ground that nobody represented on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 on the day of hearing of application under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC up to 03.05 p.m. After rejection of the application Ld. Judge provided an opportunity to the opposite party no. 1 to file written statement and additional written statement by fixing a date on 27.08.2018.

5. By the Order no. 31 dated 10.06.2019 Ld. Judge accepted the written statement filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 at the belated stage i.e. after lapse of two years and six months. Ld. Judge, considering the in ordinate delay, imposed cost of Rs. 5000/-.

Arguments:-

6. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the order no. 18 dated 31.07.2017 and submits that the application under order 6 Rule17 of CPC was allowed in absence of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the trial court. It has been further submitted that the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has not been considered in its letter and spirit at the time of allowing the same that too in absence of other side. Mr. Banerjee, in support of his contention relied on a case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs. K.K. Modi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385.

7. Mr. Banerjee has further contended that one application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for recalling the order dated 31.07.2017 but, Ld. Judge by his order no. 24 dated 04.07.2018 rejected the same on the same ground as envisaged in the order dated 31.07.2017.

8. With respect to order no. 31 dated 10.06.2019 Ld. Judge accepted the written statement filed by the opposite party no. 2/National Insurance Company on 07.02.2018 i.e. after two years six months whereas notice was served upon the opposite party no. 2 on 06.08.2015 only on the ground - “ In order to meet the end of justice.” Mr. Banerjee has submitted that written statement cannot be accepted beyond the statutory period without any plausible reason. In support of his contention, He relied on Mohammed Yusuf vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors reported in 2009 (3) SCC513 & Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2441.

9. Per contra, Mr. Sailesh Kumar Gupta, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party/claimant has submitted that the opposite party no. 1/petitioner herein appeared in the case on 31.08.2015 after filing of the claim application on 23.07.2015, but petitioner filed WS on 01.03.2016 i.e. after seven months.

Analysis:-

10. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court handed down the following ratio in paragraphs 13 to 17:-

“1