The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment to the pleadings must be sought with bonafide and after due diligence. Delay in seeking the amendment and lack of bonafide reasons may lead to the rejection of the application.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nokha, District Bikaner, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred a suit for eviction of the respondents from the property in question. Learned counsel submits that in the suit proceedings, the issues have been framed and after framing the issues, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been preferred for amendment in the plaint. Learned counsel further submits that a suit was preferred by the petitioner on 03.7.2012 and the total area for which the suit was preferred is mentioned as 10680 Sq.ft. in paragraph-1 of the plaint. Out of this 10680 Sq.ft. of land, the petitioner sold 5340 Sq.ft. of land to one C.R. Build Con. Private Limited vide sale agreement dated 19.06.2012. Learned counsel also submits that by an inadvertent error, this fact of sale could not be mentioned in the plaint and actually the suit for eviction should have been filed for the remaining land after reducing 5340 Sq.ft., which has already been sold to C.R. Build Con. Private Limited. Therefore, in these circumstances, this application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has been filed.

4. Learned counsel further submits that such application has erroneously been rejected by the learned trial Court as the application for amendment of the pleadings could be filed at any stage before commencement of the trial. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary reported in AIR 2019 SC 1186. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 22.04.2022 may be quashed and the application preferred by the petitioner for amendment in the plaint may be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that no wrong has been committed by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. Learned counsel further submits that as per the plain reading of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., it is clear that the amendment may be allowed only if the learned trial Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party was not aware of the facts at the time of filing of the suit which are sought to be placed on record before the trial Court by way of an amendment.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner is the only person who is signatory to the sale agreement which was made in favour of C.R. Build Con. Pvt. Ltd. on 19.06.2012 and merely after 14 days of the sale agreement, the suit was filed. The petitioner should have mentioned the fact of the sale in the plaint as he was fully aware of the sale of the piece of land sold to C.R. Build Con. Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel further submits that the amendment sought for after a period of six years cannot be said to be bonafide for the reason that C.R. Build Con. Pvt. Ltd. to whom the petitioner had sold the certain piece of land, also preferred a suit for eviction against the respondents and the same is pending consideration before the learned trial Court in which the plaintiff evidence has been completed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that just to fill the lacuna in this suit, the present application has been filed. It is further submitted that the fact of such sale was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court by the respondents by way of filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. At that point of time also, the petitioner failed to take recourse for carrying out the amendment in the plaint.

8. In nutshell, learned counsel for the respond