The main legal point established is that the amendment of pleadings should not be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the party seeking the amendment can show due diligence in bringing forth the proposed amendment earlier and that the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) - Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure P-6) vide which an application filed by the petitioner-defendant for seeking amendment of the written statement, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity being contrary to the settled law pertaining to the amendment of pleadings. He has vehemently argued that the trial Court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate that mere mentioning of a wrong provision of law could not be a ground for denial to exercise its jurisdiction, which otherwise vested in it under other provisions of law. He submits that mere delay in filing of an application for amendment could not have been a ground to refuse the amendment, which had been sought by her vide application dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P-4). He further submits that it was on account of an accident slip that the facts sought to be incorporated by way of the proposed amendment could not be included initially when the written statement was filed by her. He further urged that the proposed amendment was necessary for just and effective adjudication of the matter in issue between the parties. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Palanisamy vs. N. Arumugham and another, 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 129 and Surender Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh, 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 597.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application (Annexure P-4) had been moved by the petitioner-defendant with an oblique motive to delay the proceedings before the trial Court. It is contended that the application (Annexure P-4) had been moved by the petitioner at a highly belated stage i.e. when the defendants evidence was underway. Hence, the impugned order could not be faulted with and had been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. He also contends that the application, which had been filed by the petitioner was not maintainable as under the garb of Section 151 CPC, the petitioner was in fact trying to seek amendment of the written statement and had the proposed amendment been actually allowed, it would have changed the entire complexion of the defence of the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material available on record.

5. This Court has no hesitation in observing that merely because a wrong provision of law had been mentioned on an application or for that matter even in the absence of the mentioning of any provision of law, the same would not come in the way of a Court for exercising its jurisdiction.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Palanisamy's case(supra) has also held that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision of law would not in any manner invalidate an order, if the Court and/or statutory authority has been vested with the requisite jurisdiction.

7. It would be relevant to reproduce Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which is as follows:

'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. A bare reading of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 makes it abundantly clear that once the trial has commenced, amendment of pleadings should not be allowed unless and until the parties seeking such amendment is able to show that des