Amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial are restricted and require demonstration of due diligence to be permitted.

JUDGMENT

Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J. - The present revision petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 12-04-2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West - II in Judl. Misc. Case No. 59 of 2023 (Ref:- O.S. No. 19 of 2012) coupled with the prayer for directing the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West - II to proceed with the trial of the suit after allowing the amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner in connection with the said original suit.

2. The respondents No. 1 and 2, during their lifetime, filed the aforesaid O.S. No. 19 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West against the present petitioner claiming the following reliefs:-

(i) A decree declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit land;

(ii) A decree declaring that the defendant acquires no right, title and interest over the suit land;

(iii) A decree declaring the order dated 13-02-1980 passed by the SDC/ Hiyangthang in Mutation Case No. 18/SDC/IW(S)/1980 and order dated 15-09-1980 passed by the SDC/ Hiyangthang in Mutation Case No. 294/SDC/IW(S)/1980 are illegal, void and non-est and that has no binding effect to the plaintiffs;

(iv) A decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit land described in Schedule "A" by demolishing the suit structures described in Schedule "B" Schedule "C-1" and Schedule "C-2" of the plaint and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs;

(v) Cost of the litigation; and

(vi) Any other reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

3. The petitioner, as the sole defendant, filed his written statement dated 30-01-2013 and as per record, the petitioner also filed a recast of his written statement on 24-06-2015 thereby indicating that the petitioner amended his original written statement filed on 30-01-2013. The said written statement is an elaborate and detailed one and the main defence taken by the petitioner in his written statement is that he purchased the suit land from the legal heirs of the original owner of the suit land including the present respondents No. 1 and 2 under an oral agreement and that he has been living on the suit land along with his family members by constructing his dwelling house and out house inside the suit land without any interruption from any quarter.

4. After about ten years from the date of filing his written statement and when the suit was at the stage of final hearing, the petitioner filed an application registered as Judl. Misc. Case No. 59 of 2023 (Ref:- O.S. No. 19 of 2012) before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal West-II with a prayer for allowing amendment of his written statement as proposed in the said application. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner seeks to insert a new line of defence in his written statement by stating that he had acquired title by prescription by being in possession of the suit land to the knowledge of the respondents/ plaintiffs for more than thirty years and as such, the possession of the petitioner become adverse to the respondents including their legal heirs and interested persons. In the said application, no reason has been given by the petitioner as to why he could not approach the court for amendment of his written statement before commencement of the trial of the suit.

5. The trial court rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner by passing the order dated 12-04-2023, impugned herein. The reasons given by the trial court for rejecting the amendment application are as under:-

(a) The case was at the stage of final hearing and the plaintiffs' counsel had already submitted their written argument and that written argument of the defendant was to be submitted by his counsel before the amendment application was filed;

(b) The proposed amendment are not necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties;

(c) By the proposed amendment, the petitioner has set up new claim of title ov