Timely filing of amended plaints under Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, 1908 is crucial, and unexplained delays may lead to dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 10.03.2023 in CS No. 58585/2016 filed by the petitioner, titled as "Dr. Er Rajainderr Jain Versus Rahul Jaina" whereby an application under Order VI Rule 18 filed on behalf of the respondent/defendant was allowed and simultaneously the application under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 filed on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff seeking condonation of delay in filing the amended plaint, was dismissed.

2. Vide order dated 13.02.2019, learned Trial Court had allowed the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 and simultaneously had noted that the amended plaint is taken on record. It further directed the respondent/defendant to file its amended written statement.

3. It transpires from the impugned order as also from the record as filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein, that the amended plaint appears to have not been filed on or before 13.02.2019.

4. Since the amended plaint was not filed, the respondent had filed an application under Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, 1908 filed on 30.04.2019 seeking closure of the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to file their amended plaint since the same was not filed despite directions dated 13.02.2019.

5. From the record, it is revealed that inspite of filing the reply to the application under Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC, 1908, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC, seeking condonation of delay that too after a lapse of about 20 months. On the aforesaid lapse, the impugned order was passed.

6. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order dated 13.02.2019 whereby the application under Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, 1908 was allowed, also noted that the amended plaint be taken on record. On that basis, Mr. Aggarwal submits that, ostensibly, amended plaint must have been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff which was directed to be taken on record. Learned counsel submits that this noting vide order dated 13.02.2019 appears to have created confusion.

7. Learned counsel also submits that since the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 was allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/defendant in case the same is to be filed now, for the reason that requisite objections, as per law, can still be taken by the respondent/defendant against such amendments in his written statement.

8. Learned counsel submits that prejudice, if at all, would be caused, only to the petitioner/plaintiff, in case the amended plaint is not taken on record.

9. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently submits that it was only upon the failure to file the amended plaint, as also after ascertaining the said status after inspecting the file, that respondent/defendant was constrained to file application under Order VI Rule 18 of the CPC, 1908 seeking closure of the right to file the amended plaint.

10. Learned counsel also submits that despite filing of the aforesaid application seeking closure of right to file amended plaint, neither any reply was filed nor the amended plaint was filed. Learned counsel also submits that it was only after a lapse of 20 months that the petitioner/plaintiff suddenly woke up and made an attempt to file amended plaint along with the application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing such amended plaint.

11. Learned counsel also submits that no proper explanation or sufficient reason was tendered by the petitioner for not having filed the amended plaint, despite the application filed under Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, 1908.

12. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order does not want interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is sustainable in law. Learned counsel seeks dismissal of the present petition with costs.

13. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the