The court upheld the trial court's rejection of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing the necessity of due diligence before seeking amendments post-trial commencement.

ORDER

The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners/defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner, for workman's or employees' compensation Act by which an application preferred by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC had been rejected on the ground of delay.

2. Short facts which are necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the respondents had preferred an application under Sections 4, 10, 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 for grant of compensation against the petitioners for an amount of Rs.12,04,808/- and 12% interest thereupon alongwith 50% penalty by way of amendment in the application as prior to it, earlier the respondents had preferred an application on 13.01.2015 without impleading Petitioner No.1/Smt. Madhvi Mittal as party and statement of the claim was made only against petitioner No.1.

3. Reply to the said application was filed by petitioner No.2/Rakesh Kumar Mittal on 18.08.2015 denying all the averments made therein, particularly thaat Petitioner No.2 had not employed the deceased - Devki Prajapati at any point of time and it was clearly stated that on 14.11.2013, the deceased was not employed in any kind of work and due to accident occurred on 14.11.2013, the deceased died on 05.01.2014 and no report whereof was filed rather a false claim petition seeking compensation under the provisions of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 was made before the Commissioner for Workman's No.1, Gwalior.

4. After filing of reply to the application, the respondents had moved an application dated 10.05.2016 vide I.A.No.3 for calling of witness and I.A.No.4 for amendment in the application for compensation, which was allowed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act vide order dated 28.5.2016 and thereafter, the amendment was carried out in the application for compensation.

5. After the said amendment, Petitioner No.2 had moved an application on 10.09.2016 vide I.A.No.5 under Order 11 Rule 10 of CPC. Another application vide I.A.No.6 was filed by the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading petitioner No.1 as a party and notice of the I.A. preferred by the respondent herein vide I.A.No.6 was issued on 26.9.2006 and the reply to the same was also filed on 18.08.2015. Thereafter, application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC were allowed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act on 22.11.216 and the petitioner No.1 was impleaded as a party on 22.11.2016, which was at the stage of closing of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and after impleadment of the petitioner No.1, the reply was filed on her behalf on 16.01.2016 and thereafter, at the stage when the defendant's witnesses were being examined, the respondents herein again filed an application vide I.A.No.8 under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for amendment in the issues and as the Court was seriously prejudiced against the petitioners, allowed the I.A. on 22.4.2017. However, the petitioner No.1 later on had filed I.A.No.9 to dismiss the application against her as she had not employed anybody at her residence and the claim was totally frivolous, but the said I.A. was dismissed on 22.04.2017.

6. After the witnesses were adduced by the respondents and as earlier also, the application for calling of the witnesses i.e. Doctor under whom the deceased has treated was denied by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act on 29.07.2017, against which, the petitioner had preferred writ petition before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 17.01.2018 and the petitioners were allowed to adduce Dr. Lahariya of Sarvodaya Hospital as witness, in light the aforesaid, the petitioner No.1 had filed one application before the Commissioner, for bringing the map on record, approved by the Municipal Corporation. The reply to the application was filed by the respondents opposing the prayer to amend the reply filed