The court clarified that amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 require a demonstration of due diligence, rejecting late applications that merely correct previous errors without just cause.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that petition may be accepted and impugned Orders both dated 21.06.2023 Annexure P-6 may be ordered to be quashed and set aside and consequently the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure being C.M.A. No. 93/6 of 2022, CNR: HPS 1070003662023, Registration No. 183/2023 (Filing No. 366 of 2023) and application under Order 8 Rules 1- A of the Code of Civil Procedure C.M.A. No. 94/6 of 2022, CNR: HPS 1070003672023, Registration No. 184/2023 (Filing No. 367 of 2023) may be ordered to be dismissed with costs throughout.”

2. When this case was taken up on 18.07.2023, the following order was passed:-

“Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition be treated to have been filed only against the order dated 21.06.2023, passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the application moved by the defendants, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His statement is taken on record.

Accordingly, the present petition shall be treated to have been filed only against the aforesaid order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law against the other order dated 21.06.2023, passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the defendants’ application under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Heard. Issue notice presently confined to respondents No.1 (a) to 1 (c) and respondent No.2, returnable for 21.08.2023, on taking steps within five days.

Till the next date of hearing, further proceedings in Civil Suit No.22/1 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P, shall remain stayed.

List on 21.08.2023.”

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner has filed a suit against the contesting defendants as well as proforma defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and possession. This suit was filed on 23.04.2015. Written statement thereto was filed by the original defendants on 03.11.2015. Replication to the written statement was filed on 09.12.2015. Issues in the matter were framed on 29.04.2017. Thereafter, the plaintiffs led evidence and closed the same on 07.05.2018. Thereafter the case was listed for recording of the evidence of the defendants. The same was recorded and closed on 05.11.2019. The matter thereafter was listed for the purpose of arguments on 26. 02.2020 onwards. At the stage of arguments, the contesting respondents herein filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , copy thereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-5. This application was filed on 27.09.2022. It was averred in the application that original defendant No.1 Shri Sunder Singh was no more and after his death the applicants succeeded Shri Sunder Singh. They changed the counsel who was engaged by their father to defend the case. Thereafter, in the course of preparing arguments, it came to the knowledge of the applicants that due to “inadvertence certain mistakes have been left while drafting the written statement by the counsel”. On this basic premise, the amendment to the written statement was sought by the applicants in the terms proposed in the application. The prayer was opposed by the non-applicants/plain