Amendment of written statement requires due diligence; delay without just cause can lead to rejection.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.187 of 2012 instituted by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Kollegala seeking a relief of declaration and permanent injunction.

2. Heard Sri D.S.Jayaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.K. Girish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 1^st respondent/plaintiff institutes O.S.No.187 of 2012 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On receipt of summons, the defendants enter appearance and file their written statement on 30-07-2012. The trial progresses. 13 years passed by. An application comes to be filed by the defendants on 02-09-2023 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of the CPC seeking amendment to the written statement after 11 years of its filing. The plaintiff has filed objections to the application. The concerned Court rejects the same on 09.04.2025. The rejection of which has driven defendant Nos.2 and 3 to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the application was preferred to insert paragraphs 6(a) to 6(c) on the ground that the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.187 of 2012 bringing in fraudulent boundaries and the defendants got the knowledge of the said fact only recently. Therefore, it was imperative on the part of the concerned Court to have allowed the application as it was only seeking insertion of certain paragraphs.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff would contend that the matter was at the stage of final arguments. At that point in time, the application comes to be filed on a fact that was all along known to them for 11 years, as they are wanting to produce boundaries indicated in a suit of the plaintiff allegedly instituted in the year 2012. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the concerned Court is the submission of the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass.

Application – I.A.No.XIV is preferred by the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 after 11 years of filing of the written statement to introduce certain new facts in a suit instituted by the plaintiff in the year 2012, by pleading that multiplicity of proceedings would ensue, if the amendment is not allowed. The concerned Court by the following order rejects the application:

“5) POINT NO.1 :

The defendants have filed the present IA No.14, seeking amendment of their written statement filed on 30.07.2012, by insertion of Para No.6(a) to (c) as already mentioned, it is contention of the defendants that, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration and consequential injunction by giving false boundaries to the suit schedule property and the defendants have got to know about the said facts only when they obtained certified copies from the authorities.

6) On the perusal of the pleadings sought for insertion, it would indicate that the defendants want to explain the flow of title to the property bearing Sy.No.153/8 and 153/9 of Mulluru Village, but the property which is in the question is Sy.No.153/10 which is as per the admissions by the defendants, the defendants are nowhere connected to said property Via title.

7) Before discussing the merits of the application, it would be proper for this court to note down the conduct of the defendants before this court. On service of summons the defendants through their couns