An amendment to pleadings after the commencement of trial under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is impermissible unless the party demonstrates due diligence and the amendment is essential for determining the real question in controversy, particularly when there is an unexplained gross delay.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners-original plaintiffs seeking following reliefs.

“(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this Special Civil Application.

(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned 7th Additional Civil Judge, Junagadh below Exhibit 36 in Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2020 on dated 06.07.2024 in the interest of justice.

(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the petition this Hon’ble court may be pleased to stay implementation, execution and operation of the judgment and order passed by learned 7th Additional Civil Judge, Junagadh below Exhibit-36 in Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2020 on dated 06.07.2024 in the interest of justice.

(D) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of the petition this Hon’ble court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Regular Civil Suit No.161 of 2019 in the interest of justice.

(E) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Sanghavi for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Rituraj M. Meena for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the notice issued on 07.04.2010 issued by Deputy Engineer (O&M) PGVCL GIDC S/Dn Junagadh. In the suit, petitioners filed an application Exhibit-5 seeking restoration of electricity which came to be rejected. In the Appeal from Order, on allowing the same, petitioners were put to terms and the same have been complied with by the petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners filed Exhibit-36 application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) seeking amendment in plaint. By way of an amendment, plaintiff sought to add a prayer of set off or return of an amount of Rs.6,20,903.89 paise with interest at the rate of 12% per annum which was deposited by plaintiff pursuant to an order passed by Court. The amendment application came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of amendment application-Exhibit-36, the present petitioners-original plaintiffs have filed the present petition.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the suit is filed for a declaration that the notice dated 07.04.2010 issued by the defendant be declared as illegal and void and further prayed for re-connection of electric power. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.05.2010, plaintiff was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.6,20,903.89 paisa for the re-connection of electric supply by learned District Court. Plaintiff thereafter complied with the said direction and deposited the amount. Thereafter, plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for adding a prayer of either return or adjustment of the said amount, in case, plaintiff succeeds in the suit. The application came to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the order rejecting the application for amendment is against the settled proposition of law. It is further submitted that while deciding the application for amendment in pleadings, the Court should take a lenient view. It is further submitted