The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of due diligence in seeking amendments to pleadings after the trial has commenced, as emphasized in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. The petitioner challenges an order dated 4.6.2009, whereby the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, has dismissed his application for amendment of the plaint.

2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit land by alleging that part of the suit land was sold to him by Mahadev vide sale deed dated 22.6.1979 and for the remaining half share, owned by the vendor-s brother Mukanda, the vendor received money after promising the petitioner that this half share would be transferred to his name by the vendor-s brother.

3. During the pendency of the suit, but before evidence could commence, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint praying that he should be allowed to incorporate a plea that after the demise of Mukanda, his legal heirs executed an agreement to sell dated 13.6.1981 and delivered possession of their half share to the petitioner. It was pleaded that these facts were brought to the notice of his counsel, but were not pleaded on account of a bona fide error.

4. The contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 opposed the prayer for amendment by pleading that as the trial has commenced, the prayer for amendment cannot be accepted. It was further pleaded that as the heirs of Mukanda have sold their half share to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by way of a registered sale deed 21.8.1980 even if the amendment is allowed the subsequent agreement in favour of the petitioner, would be irrelevant. The trial court dismissed the application by holding that the petitioner has failed to prove the exercise of "due diligence" for not incorporating this plea in the original plaint.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment of the plaint is necessary, as both parties claim possession of the suit land, the petitioner on the basis of an agreement and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the basis of a sale deed. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code can not be read as an absolute bar to the power of a court to allow amendment of pleadings. It is argued that as the petitioner provided all necessary documents to his counsel, disclosed all relevant facts, the error by his counsel in not incorporating this plea should have been accepted as a bonafide error committed despite the exercise of "due diligence".

6. Counsel for respondents Nos. I to 3, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has failed to make out a case, whether of due diligence or that the amendment is necessary to determine the real question in controversy. The heirs of Mukanda executed a prior sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The alleged agreement in favour of the petitioner is, therefore, null and void. It is prayed that as the discretion exercised by the trial court in declining the prayer for amendment is neither arbitrary nor perverse, the revision petition should be dismissed.

7. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgement and considered the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, which read as follows --

"Order 6- Rule J 7. 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. Order 6 Rule 17 commences with the words "the court may at any stage of the proceedings" and thereafter, goes on to confer a power to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings, where it appears to the court that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. T