Amendment applications filed post-trial commencement are not permitted unless due diligence is established.

JUDGMENT

The prayers in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-

“(i) Set-aside Exhibit-P9 and P12 orders passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Attingal and direct the court to Consider Exhibit-P7 and Exhibit P10 petitions afresh. (ii) Issue such other writ order or direction deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner is plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.347/1996 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Attingal.

3. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of title and possession and other consequential reliefs in respect of the plaint schedule property.

4. The defendant filed written statement.

5. The plaintiffs have also filed O.S.No.315/1998 claiming damages from the defendants. In O.S.No.315/1998 defendant No.1 filed written statement along with a counter claim seeking partition of the properties scheduled in it.

6. The Trial Court consolidated both the suits and proceeded with the trial.

7. After trial, the Trial Court dismissed O.S.No.347/1996 and decreed the counter claim in O.S.No.315/1998. The petitioner challenged the decree passed in the suit before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court after giving opportunity to both sides to lead additional evidence and for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

8. The petitioner/plaintiff No.2 filed I.A.No.3084 of

2019 seeking to incorporate amendments in the pleadings. The Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the application is highly belated and that the plaintiff by way of amendment seeks to withdraw an admission made in the pleadings.

9. Admittedly, I.A.No.3084 of 2019 seeking amendments of pleadings was filed after the commencement of the trial. The petitioner/plaintiff failed to place any materials to show that in spite of due diligence she could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 makes it clear that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

10. Therefore, Ext.P9 order in I.A.No.3084/2019 is not affected with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .

11. The petitioner also challenges the order in I.A.No.3335/2019 in O.S.No.315/1998. As per this I.A., defendant No.1 wanted to incorporate an amendment in the pleadings with respect to the share entitled to the defendants. During the course of proceedings, plaintiff No.1 died. Plaintiff No.2 and the defendants were recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.1 as per the order in I.A.No.766/2017 in the appellate stage. The amendment to effect corrections in the share entitled to the parties is only consequential to the impleadment of the legal representatives, which will not change the nature of the suit. Therefore, the order allowing I.A.No.3335/2019 stands confirmed.

The Original Petition lacks merits and it stands dismissed.