The court upheld that amendments to pleadings can be denied if delays are not properly explained, emphasizing the necessity of timely applications to uphold procedural integrity.

Heard on admission.

By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 whereby the petitioner/plaintiff's application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected.

Indeed, the suit was filed for seeking a declaration about the construction 'valid' for which notices were issued by the respondents treating the same unauthorised and illegal. The suit was filed somewhere in the year 2014 and the plaintiff evidence is yet to be started. By way of amendment, certain facts are sought to be brought on record and as per the application and the impugned order of the court below, it reveals that those pleadings are nothing but relating to the facts which were already in the knowledge of the plaintiff and relating to the facts which have already been pleaded in the plaint, but just to supplement those pleadings, the amendment is being sought.

1 MP-3586-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55685 The court below rejected the application after due consideration and also observed that the amendment has been moved at a belated stage, without disclosing that the said facts could not have been brought on record before moving the application when it was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff and looking to the nature of the suit and the fact that it was filed in the year 2014 whereas amendment is sought in the year 2023, the court rejected the application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay cannot be made a sole ground for rejecting the amendment. He also submits that the application could have been allowed considering the fact that the facts which are sought to be pleaded by way of amendment are very material and do not change the nature of case, conversely they would supplement the pleadings already made in the plaint. He also places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another (2022) 16 SCC 1 ., In contrast, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that admittedly the facts which are being sought to be brought on record by way of amendment were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner and there was no sufficient explanation given and no due diligence shown as to why the said amendment was not brought earlier and it was not pleaded at the time of submitting the plaint. He also submits that the delay can be condoned but it does not mean in every case it be condoned, otherwise the very purpose of provision especially proviso appended to the Order VI Rule 17 CPC would 2 MP-3586-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55685 be frustrated and it would become redundant.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties and on perusal of the record, including the decision of the Supreme Court on which petitioner has placed reliance, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances, the delay caused in moving the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is not properly explained. If the pleading which is to be brought on record is not brought on record, it would affect the adjudication of the case, the delay can be condoned. As per the counsel for the petitioner himself, the amendment which is sought to be brought on record is nothing but a supplement to the pleading already made. I do not find any merits in the case and delay occurred in moving the application cannot be condoned.

The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and therefore no interference is called for. In the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, the Supreme Court has observed as to when delay can be condoned. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinunder;_ "18. It is well settled that the court must be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment, if the court is of the view that if such amendment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irre