The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to allow amendments should be exercised judiciously, and no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has filed instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He seeks quashing of Order dated 4th June 2014, hereinafter for brevity referred to as “impugned order”, passed by Additional District Judge, Bank Cases, Jammu, for brevity “Trial Court”, in a case titled as Bank of Baroda vs. Parbhat Terpenes and others. In terms of impugned order petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of written statement has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Respondent – Bank of Baroda, has filed a civil suit for recovery of money against petitioner-company and others before Trial Court as petitioner-company for its Oleo Pine Resin Business at Industrial Estate, Jammu had availed loan/credit facilities. Upon filing of civil suit, petitioner/defendant filed its written statement way back in the year 2001. It was in the year 2008 that the Trial Court, vide its order dated 22nd July 2008, framed the issues and fixed the matter for evidence of plaintiff – respondent herein. It is contention of petitioner that in order to elaborate its defence and to incorporate few developments that according to him took place during pendency of civil suit, he filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C seeking amendment of written statement. Application, however, came to be dismissed by Trial Court vide order impugned.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing order impugned has stated that order impugned is without any merit and without appreciating facts of the case and relevant provisions of CPC. Impugned order, it is next stated, has been passed in utter disregard and contravention of provisions of Order 6 Rule 17. The Trial Court has fallen in error in holding that petitioner’s application for amendment of written statement is time barred and that no application for condonation of delay has been filed when legal position is that there is no period of limitation provided under the CPC or any other law including Limitation Act to prescribe any period of any limitation for seeking amendment of written statement. He contends that amendment of written statement can be sought at any stage of the suit under the provisions of Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC.

Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that Trial Court has misread facts of the case and dismissed petitioner’s application on the ground that suit has reached at fag end which does not coincide with the true facts of the case. He also states that the trial in the suit is being conducted and the suit is pending disposal for producing evidence by petitioner and that statement of a single witness has been recorded and that examination-in-chief of only one of the plaintiff’s witnesses has been recorded that too during the period the petitioner was set ex parte. He would contend that ex parte proceedings initiated against petitioner have been set aside and that setting aside of ex parte proceedings against him has brought the suit to the same position as it was before he was set ex parte.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as order impugned.

4. Pleadings are statement in writing delivered by each party alternately to his opponent, stating what his contentions will be at the trial, giving all such details as his opponent needs to know in order to prepare his case in answer. It is an essential requirement of pleading that material fact and necessary particulars must be stated in the pleadings and the decisions cannot be based on the grounds outside the pleadings. But many a time the party may find it necessary to amend his pleadings before or during the trial of the case.

5. The law on the subject of pleadings is contained in Rule 17 of Order 6 of the C.P.C which reads as under :

“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 amendme