The lack of bona fide in proposed amendments and the attempt to delay the proceedings can lead to the dismissal of an amendment application.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 29.03.2016 to the extent that it dismissed the application for amendment filed by the petitioner for non-prosecution, the order dated 27.04.2016 by which the trial court declined to recall its earlier order dated 29.03.2016 and to set aside the order dated 10.05.2016 to the extent that the said order directed postponement of the review application of the petitioner praying for review of the foresaid order dated 27.04.2016.

2. The background facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent/mesne profits/damages for the property bearing No. F-34, Flat No. 6, East Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. It is averred in the plaint that in the lease deed dated 08.02.2011 was executed between the parties and the property was let out for 11 months w.e.f. 08.02.2011 to 31.12.2011 @ Rs.7,900/- per month.

3. The respondent filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree in view of the admissions of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement due to change of circumstances/subsequent developments. Two paras are sought to be added in the written statement which read as follows:

“8. That the defendant has purchased the property in question from Afzal Ahmed, thereafter the said defendant has become the lawful owner, who is also in peaceful possession of the suit property, hence the suit is not maintainable against the defendant.

9. That, the plaintiff is not entitle to the relief as prayed in the present suit, in view of the purchasing the suit property by the defendant, hence the present suit is not maintainable in the present form, plaintiff is not the landlord of the defendant, and the defendant is also not the tenant in respect of the suit property.”

4. The genesis of the amendment was that it was claimed by the petitioner that one Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain purchased the property vide GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt and will dated 08.04.2010 from the plaintiff/respondent. The said Naresh Kumar Jain thereafter is said to have sold the property by the same nature of documents to one Sh. Afzal Ahmed on 12.10.2015. The petitioner is said to have purchased the property in question from the said Sh. Afzal Ahmed based on the same nature of documents on 15.10.2015. These two transactions took place within a short span time i.e. within two days.

5. On 29.03.2016 the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 was listed. The trial court noted that the petitioner is seeking an adjournment on the ground that his counsel is busy in the Supreme Court. Noting that the application has been pending since long and on one pretext or the other, the petitioner has been seeking adjournments for arguments, the application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.04.2016.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 151 CPC for restoration of the application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement. This application was heard on 27.04.2016. The trial court noted that the case has been pending since 2012 and neither the application for interim relief nor the application moved under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC by the respondent could be decided till date and that it is reflected from the previous conduct of the petitioner/defendant that he is causing unnecessary delay in the present matter and even no sufficient ground/explanation is given by the defendant for not diligently pursuing the amendment application despite giving four consecutive opportunities therefore, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed for non-prosecution. This application under Section 151 CPC was also dismissed on 27.04.2016.

7. I am informed that apart from these applications, the petitioner has also filed an application