Promptness and due diligence are essential for seeking amendments to pleadings, and amendments should not be allowed if they would result in unjust prejudice or deprive a party of accrued rights due to lapse of time.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside of order dated 2nd November, 2017, (herein after impugned order) passed in case titled as "Mst. Mehbooba Akhter v. Ghulam Rasool Tak" by the Court of Munsiff Shopian (herein after the trial Court).

2. The background facts under the cover of which the instant petition is filed reveals that the respondent herein filed a suit on 12th May, 2014, for declaration and injunction in respect of two storied shop cum flat claimed to have been allotted to the mother of the plaintiff/respondent herein. A written statement is stated to have been filed by the defendant/petitioner herein to the suit on 17th June, 2014.

3. An application under Order VI Rule 17 is stated to have been filed by the respondent herein on 18th October, 2017, seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating challenge thrown to a family settlement deed dated 11th October, 2012. Upon filing of the objections to the said application, the trial court is stated to have passed the impugned order while allowing the said application.

4. The impugned order is being assailed inter-alia on the grounds that the same is bad in law having the effect of causing mis-carriage of justice and that the plaintiff/respondent herein though was in know of the said family settlement yet did not challenge the same at the time of institution of the suit and that the same has been challenged after the period of limitation of three years prescribed under section 3 of the Limitation Act and that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that a fresh case hopelessly time barred was being sought to be introduced by way of amendment.

5. Respondent despite availing last and final opportunity has chosen not to file any response to the petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused and record.

6. The moot question involved in the instant petition would be as to whether the impugned order has been passed in tune with the mandate of Order VI Rule 17 CPC relating to the amendment of pleadings.

7. Before adverting to the said question, it would be appropriate to refer to Order VI Rule 17 CPC:-

"Or. 6 R. 17: Amendment of Pleadings:-- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

8. What emerges from above is that - Rule 17 of Order 6 declares that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. It also states that such amendments should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Proviso, as added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, enacts that no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter (for which amendment is sought) before the commencement of the trial.

9. Law is no more res-integra that the amendments are generally to be allowed unless it is shown that permitting the amendment would be unjust and result in prejudice against the opposite side which cannot be compensated by costs or would deprive him of a right which has accrued to him with the lapse of time. The Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. vs. T. N. Electricity Board & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 392 while referring to L. J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co. has held that Court would as a rule de