The main legal point established is that under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, the court may allow the parties to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, as long as it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been listed in the category of ‘for admission-notice served-reply not filed’. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard today, itself.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

1. allow this writ petition.

2. quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure-13) to the extent it reject applications under O.6 R.17 and application under Section 151 CPC and, accordingly, the applications (Annex.9 and Annex.11) may kindly be allowed as prayed for.

3. pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. allow cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No.1, 2, 3, contending that the mother of the petitioner-plaintiff is an old lady and suffering from illness and thus, is not in a mental state and physical condition to take care of the property in question and on account of the said illness of the petitioner-defendant’s mother, the brother of the petitioner plaintiff requested the petitioner plaintiff to take care of the mother at his house and executed a power of attorney dated 14.06.2016 in favour of his wife Smt. Ratan Devi-respondent-defendant No.1 for operating the bank account of petitioner-defendant’s mother. Thereafter, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant No.1 to 3 as the defendant No.1 and 2 in connivance with the bank authorities were bent upon to withdraw the entire amount which was deposited with the respondent-bank. The petitioner-plaintiff also preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction to the effect that the defendant No.1 and 2 may be restrained from withdrawing the amount and the respondent No.3-ICICI Bank may be restrained to disburse the amount in favour of the power of attorney holder.

4. The learned Court below vide order dated 28.11.2014 (Annexure 5 and 6) refused to grant ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. The respondent defendants submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of valuation of suit being barred by law which was rejected by the learned court below on 28.11.2014. The petitioner-plaintiff also preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of his mother as party defendant which was duly allowed vide order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure-13). The petitioner-plaintiff also preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the plaint in order to add prayer to the effect to declare the power of attorney as void-ab-initio. The said application of the petitioner-plaintiff was rejected vide order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure-13). The petitioner being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure-13) qua the rejection of application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has preferred the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC ought not to have been rejected as when the said application was filed the written statements to the suit had not been filed by the respondents-defendants and since the application was filed at a much earlier stage, the application ought to have been accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said amendment in the suit praying for relief for declaring the power of attorney as void-ab-initio shall not change the nature of the suit as in the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, a specific submission was made that the power of attorney has been fraudulently made by the respondents-defendants with the purpose to withdraw the amount from the bank account of his mother.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents ve