The judgment establishes the principle that applications for amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC must be filed with due diligence and are subject to limitations after the trial has commenced.

Anil Kumar, J. –

Heard Shri U.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that opposite party/Shri Vijay Narayan Seth filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 registered as Rent Eviction Case No.3 of 2013. In the said matter, petitioner filed his written statement.

3. On 24.07.2015, petitioner filed amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, rejected by order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority.

4. In view of the above said factual background, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plea which petitioner wants to take by way of amendment is only came into his knowledge in the month of July, 2015 and an application for amendment was moved on 24.07.2015, as such, there is no justification or reason on the part of the opposite party no.1 thereby rejecting the amendment application. Accordingly, the impugned order under challenged in the present case is liable to be set aside.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of the record, the position which emerges out is that while rejecting the application for amendment, opposite party no.1 has given a categorically finding to the effect that the case registered as Rent Eviction Case No.3 of 2013 has been fixed for hearing, so at this stage amendment application is not maintainable moved under Order 6, Rule 17 .

8. In order to decide the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as exists before 1999 is quoted as under: -

"Order 6, Rule 17 :

"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."

The aforesaid provision was omitted by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999" Section 16 of the Amendment Act reads as follows:

"16. Amendment of Order 6- in the First Schedule, in Order 6-

*** ****** ****** ******

(iii) Rules 17 and 18 shall be omitted."

9. The provision as it exists now after the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 Order 6, Rule 17

"17. Amendment of pleadings - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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.

It is seen that before the amendment of Order 6, Rule 17 by Act 46 of 1999, the Court has taken a very wide view of the power to amend the pleadings including even the plaint as could be seen from L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438 , SCR at 450 and Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja, (2002) 2 SCC 445 : AIR 2002 SC 1003 .

By Act 46 of 1999, there was a sweeping amendment by which Rules 17 and 18 were wholly omitted so that an amendment itself was not permissible, although sometimes effort was made to rely on Section 148 for extension of time for any purpose.

Ultimately, to strike a balance the legislature applied its mind and reintroduced Rule 14 by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1-7-2002. It had a provision permitting amendment in the first part which said that the Court may at any stage permit amendment as described therein. But it also had a total bar introduced by a proviso which prevented any application for amendment to be allowed after the trial had commenced