Amendments to pleadings after trial completion are not allowed without due diligence; the proposed amendment that alters the nature of the suit is impermissible and unnecessary for resolving the existing issues.

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2024 A suit for declaration and injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, was sought to be amended by the plaintiffs, after the entire evidence was over and arguments were addressed by the plaintiffs. The same was dismissed vide Ext.P1 order, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. The suit pertains to election to the N.S.S. Taluk Union, High Range, Idukki.

2. The plaintiffs claimed to be office bearers of the said Taluk Union, having been elected to various offices on 07.04.2019. Though the tenure of the office is for three years, the bye-laws of the Taluk Union permit the existing office bearers to continue in office, until a new Committee is duly elected and assume charge. The declaration sought for is to that effect. The prohibitory injunction was to restrain the defendants including the 9th defendant/Registrar from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs in the discharge of their functions and duties, until the duly elected Committee takes charge. The third relief is more relevant in the context, which is for a mandatory injunction directing the 9th defendant to conduct elections to the N.S.S. Taluk Union, High Range, in accordance with the bylaws of the Union. By virtue of Ext.P9 application for amendment, an additional relief is sought to be incorporated, which is also for a mandatory injunction directing the 9th defendant/Registrar, either to conduct elections or to give appropriate directions to the Secretary of the Taluk Union to conduct elections of the Union 'Prathinidhis'(representatives) from the various Karayogams coming under the Taluk Union within a time frame fixed by the court. Ext.P9 application was resisted on various grounds, which was accepted by the learned Sub Judge to refuse the amendment sought for.

3. Heard Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri.Anil D.Kartha, learned counsel for respondents 9 and 10 and Sri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that there are 86 Karayogams affiliated to the Taluk Union, High Range, Idukki and that at the time of filing the suit, as many as 75 Karayogams were eligible to take part in the election to the Taluk Union, since the prathinidhis from each Karayogam were duly elected at that time. However, pendente lite, the tenure of the Union prathinidhis in 43 Karayogams got expired; elections to three other Karayogams are yet to be approved by the 9th defendant, with the result, 40 Karayogams are deprived of their valuable right of representation, as also, to vote in the Taluk Union General Body and in the Committee. According to the learned counsel, the 9th defendant/Registrar is duty bound to conduct elections to the Karayogams, as well. He is acting in an arbitrary manner, so as to wreck vengeance upon those Karayogams, who themselves got impleaded in the suit pursuant to a publication under Order I, Rule 8, whereas, elections to other Karayogams are being conducted. According to the learned counsel, elections to the Karayogams is a sine qua non for granting the main relief sought for in the suit, namely, a mandatory injunction to conduct elections to the Taluk Union, since prathinidhis (representatives) from Karayogams are required to be elected for the same. Thus, the amendment sought for is essential for determining the real controversy in the suit. The same would neither alter the nature and character of the suit; nor cause any prejudice to the respondents. On the aspect of due diligence, in the context of the Proviso to Order VI, Rule 17, it is submitted that the delay was occasioned for the reason that the expiry of the tenure of Union prathinidhis took place on various dates during the pendency of the suit. In this regard, it was also contended that the embargo by virtue of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 would not restrict, the power of the court in any manner, except placing a reasonable restraint, as held by this Cour