U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief, among others:

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Dehradun and order dated 30.05.2015 passed by IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun on amendment application / impeadment application paper no.136A filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in Original Suit No.170/05, Suresh Chand vs. Nagar Nigam & others, pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun and the amendment application filed by the petitioner, paper No.136A may be allowed in toto.”

2. A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the respondent nos.2 & 3 initially, to which, respondent no.1 was added subsequently on his impleadment application. Learned counsel for the parties pointed out that issues have been framed, but, the same were not framed when the plaintiff sought the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments sought to be incorporated by the plaintiff have been mentioned in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Since the proposed amendments are lengthy, hence, this Court need not reproduce the entire amendments for the sake of convenience and brevity. However, the substance of the proposed amendments shall be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgment.

3. Having said that the respondent no.1 was impleaded subsequently, the plaintiff averred, in the amendment application, that on 26.11.2011, when he was sitting in his office, defendant nos.4 to 7 came to the spot, threatened him with dire consequences and also threatened him to vacate the property in question. According to the plaintiff, defendants no.4 to 7 also threatened him to sell off the property of plaintiff and defendant no.3. Plaintiff, therefore, sought to incorporate, by way of amendment, that the entries made in favour of respondent nos.4 to 7 are forged, for which, the State Government is responsible. The remaining part of the amendment application deals with the valuation of the suit. The next one is as regards the relief that defendant nos.4 to 7 be directed not to interfere in the joint passage of plaintiff and defendant no.3. It also prays that the entries made in favour of the proposed defendant nos.4 to 7 be deleted and a direction be given to the State Government in this behalf.

4. The sweep and ambit of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is very wide. The exceptions, broadly speaking, are – if the Court finds that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands; the character of the suit is changed; the amendment application is unusually belated; there is malafide on the part of the applicant; there is withdrawal of earlier admitted facts and the matter is covered by proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. In the instant case, admittedly, the trial was not commenced when the amendment application was filed and, therefore, there is no need for this Court to go into the question that in ‘inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial.’ Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. says that 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 same is subject to proviso, which is as follows:

“17. Amendment of pleadings. – ………...............………………… …………………………………………………………………………........………

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

5. There is no doubt that the amendments sought to be incorporated relate to the same property. When amendment application is allowed o