Court emphasized a liberal approach in allowing amendments under Order VI Rule 17, especially when necessary for complete adjudication and no significant prejudice to other party is caused.

ORDER :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and propriety of the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by learned Sr. Civil Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (learned trial Court) rejecting the application filed by the petitioner–plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint.

2. The facts germane to the present writ petition are that:-

2.1 The petitioner-plaintiff has preferred a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell said to be executed by defendant No.1-Darshan Singh on 31.12.1986 agreeing to sell his share in the land in question. Learned trial court while proceeding ex-parte against the respondent defendant, vide judgment and decreed dated 21.07.2009 partly allowed the suit and passed money decree in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, while denying relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 31.12.1986.

2.2. Said judgment dated 21.07.2009 and decree dated 01.08.2009 was challenged by the petitioner-plaintiff in regular first appeal.

On the other hand, defendant after coming to know about passing of ex-parte decree dated 01.08.2009, preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 01.03.2016 and the ex-parte judgment dated 21.07.2009 and decree dated 01.08.2009 were set aside. By virtue of the said order, the suit proceedings got revived.

2.3. Since the suit proceedings got revived, the petitioner- plaintiff has withdrawn his first appeal and the same was accordingly dismissed.

2.4. After the suit proceedings got revived by order dated 01.03.2016, the petitioner plaintiff preferred an application dated 30.04.2016 (Annexure-4) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and sought to introduce the amendment with regard to judgment and decree of partition dated 04.09.2000 passed in a revenue suit so also regarding the sale deed dated 05.07.2012 (24.07.2012) by which the respondent-defendant Nos. 3 to 5 have sold the land in question to respondent No.6, during the period the suit proceedings were not in currency. It is stated that the partition decree as well as the subsequent sale deed are affecting the rights of the petitioner, hence by way of amendment, prayer was sought to be added for declaring the partition decree as well as subsequent sale deed dated 05.07.2012 as null and void qua the rights of the plaintiff.

The said application was contested by the respondent- defendant on the ground that the same is delayed one and same has been filed without any due diligence. It is contended that amendment sought in the plaint would change the nature of the suit.

2.5 Learned trial court vide order dated 28.08.2019 has rejected the application preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and refused to take the amendment on record. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

3. While arguing on behalf of petitioner, counsel stated that order impugned is absolutely erroneous and unjustified. Learned trial Court has rejected the application merely on the ground of delay in filing the application without considering the relevance and importance of the amendment sought to be introduced in the plaint.

3.1 Counsel for petitioner argued that subsequent sale has taken place during the period when the suit was decreed and the same was restored by allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, hence the amendment sought cannot be said to be belated and without due diligence.

3.2 Learned counsel for the