The main legal point established in the judgment is that the permissibility of amendments to the written statement should be determined based on the necessity for proper adjudication, absence of prejudice, and the absence of a bar by limitation, in accordance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC and relevant case law.

Shri Narayan Shukla,J.:-

Heard Mr.Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Mohd.Adil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd of July, 2009, passed by the District Judge, Faizabad, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the opposite party No.3 has been allowed.

3. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration to be the sole owner of the property in dispute and further for mandatory injunction to remove the possession of the opposite party No.3 from the property in dispute. During the course of trial of the suit the opposite party No.3 moved an application for amendment of the written statement, which was rejected. Then he filed revision against the order passed on the application, which was also dismissed. Then the opposite party No.3 preferred a writ petition bearing writ petition No.530 of 2007 (MS), which was disposed of with the direction to amend the written statement. The petitioner was permitted to file reply of such an amendment and the trial court was directed to frame necessary issues. Accordingly the trial court framed the additional issues. The petitioner sought permission to bring on record the documentary evidence, which was rejected. Then he preferred a writ petition bearing writ petition No.4260 (MS) of 2008. This court by means of order dated 9th of September, 2009 passed in the aforesaid writ petition allowed the petitioner to file documentary evidence, in rebuttal of the evidence led by the respondent No.3. Accordingly the trial court proceeded with the suit and decreed the petitioner's suit by means of order dated 12th of November, 2008. The opposite party No.3 challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court by way of appeal, which is pending for decision before the opposite party No.1. Now again at the stage of appeal the opposite party No.3 moved an application for further amendment of the written statement, against which the petitioner filed objection to the effect that by moving such an application the opposite party No.3 is adopting dilatory tactics to remain in occupation of the premises in dispute. Further he had already moved an application for amendment of the written statement, which was allowed, therefore, whatever amendment was required by him in the written statement that would have been proposed at first time of application of amendment moved by him. Considering the application for amendment as well as objection raised against that, the appellate court allowed the application for amendment by means of order dated 3rd of July, 2009, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the necessary facts as proposed through the amendment were already brought on record through the written statement for deciding the real controversy involving in the case, therefore, there is no need of further amendment in the written statement. He further submits that by way of proposed amendment the respondent No.3 has tried to resile the admission of a witness, who is D.W.1, made through his cross examination, which is not permissible in the eye of law. He further submits that the respondent No.3 has sought the amendment in the written statement after conclusion of trial, whereas the order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure speaks that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is 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.

5. In the light of the aforesaid provisions he submits that the respondent No.3 has failed to disclose as to why he could not raise the plea which have been taken through the proposed amendment before the commencement of trial or conclusion of the trial or even at the time of first application for amendment moved by h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document