Amendments to pleadings must be timely, and admissions cannot be withdrawn after lengthy delays without demonstrating due diligence.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by the present petitions under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as the application

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

filed under Order VI, Rule, 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the present petitioners and other documents appended with the petition.

3. It is a matter of record that the civil suit pertains to the year 2012 and the written statement was also filed in the month of February, 2013. What the pettitioners intended to amend by way of application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure , in the month of March, 2020, was that they wanted to substitute the response filed to para-6 of the plaint on merit on the ground that in the original written statement inadvertently in para-6 of the reply on merit of the written statement it was wrongly typed that para-5 is also admitted to be correct. Relevant paras of the application are being quoted herein below:-

“That the execution and registration of the aforesaid Will dated 4-4-2006 has also been specifically pleaded in the written statement by the applicant/defendants No. 3 & 4 but inadvertently in para 6 of reply on merits of the written statement it has wrongly been typed as Para No. 5 is also admitted to be correct whereas the reply to para No. 6 of written statement was as This para is wrong not admitted and hence denied The detailed reply has been submitted above in paras supra".

4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the applicant/defendant No. 3 & 4 intend to amend the para No. 6 of the written statement which fact came to knowledge of the applicant/defendanHts No. 3 & 4 when the counsel for the applicant / defendants No. 3 & 4 preparing for final arguments, noticed the fsaid typing mistake.

5. That after the proposed amendment the para No. 6 of the reply on Merits of the written statement shall read as follow "This para is wrong not admitted and hence denied. The detailed rueply has been submitted above in paras supra".”

4. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs inter alia on the ground that the proposed amendment that too at such a belated stage was without any due diligence and further the petitioners intended to withdraw an admission made in the written statement.

5. Learned Trial Court in terms of the impugned order has Hdismissed the application by holding as under:-

“5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the case file in detail.

6. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that court may, at any stage of proceedings, allow cither party to amend his pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendment shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso to rule further added that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could noHt have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

7. Since, the applicants hafve filed the present application at the stage of final arguments, thus two questions, therefore required to be looked, into are firstly, whether the applicant, in spite of due diligence, could not have raised the matter before the commuencement of trial and secondly, whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining th