The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

following relief:

TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING

ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RON, O.S.NO.76/2016 ON

I.A.NO.17 DATED 09.02.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE

SAID I.A.NO.17 MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED.

- 4 -

O.S.No.76/2016 had been filed seeking for partition

and separate possession. The petitioners who are

defendant Nos.6 and 8 in the said suit had filed their

written statement in the year 2018. Thereafter issues

were framed, evidence was led by the plaintiff.

Subsequently,

other

defendants

also

led

their

evidence and the matter was posted for cross-

examination of DW.3 and at that stage an application

under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC came to be filed which

is numbered as I.A.No.17.

By way of said amendment application, defendant

Nos.6 and 8 have sought for amendment of nearly

six pages. In the affidavit in support thereof the

contention is that the amendments are required to

further and properly explain the pleadings earlier

taken

up

in

the

written

statement,

which

requirement having been pointed out by the new

counsel who had entered appearance for defendants.

The said application came to be objected to and the

- 5 -

trial Court dismissed the application on the ground

that the same is belated, the amendment is a post

trial amendment. The defendants having filed written

statement in the year 2018, the application was filed

in December-2021 after nearly 4 years. There are no

bonafides in the said application. The application has

been filed only to delay the proceedings. The original

written statement being of 11 pages the amendment

itself is more than six pages. The only ground being

to explain the averments made in the written

statement there is no such need for such explanation

and as such dismissed the application.

Learned counsel, Miss.Ranjitha for Sri.B.V.Sompaur

for the petitioner would submit that the application

has been necessitated on account of a new counsel

having appeared and finding that the averments

made in the earlier written statement needs to be

explained. There are no new grounds raised in the

written statement. The written statement does not

- 6 -

alter the defence earlier taken up. Therefore, there

was no impediment for the trial Court could have

allowed the said application.

Heard Miss.Ranjitha for Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned

counsel for the petitioners.

In view of the proposed order to be passed, notice to

the respondents is dispensed with.

The suit being of the year 2016, written statement

was filed in the year 2018 and the amendment

application is filed in December-2021 when the

matter was posted for cross-examination of DW.3. In

the affidavit in support of the application under Order

6 Rule 17, there are no grounds which have been

made out to explain as to why this amendment could

not be sought for prior to commencement of the trial

thereby fulfilling the requirement of proviso to Order

6 Rule 17 of CPC. The only contention which has

been taken is that the amendments are required to

- 7 -

more fully and properly explain the averments

already made in the written statement. It is not that

any new averment is being made by way of the

amendment. What is only sought is a detailed

explanation to the already existing averments.

8.

The trial Court has rightly considered this matter in a

proper perspective and dismissed the application by

holding that there are no bonafides expressed and an

amendment cannot be permitted for only explaining

the amendments already made in the written

statement. In view thereof, I am of the considered

opinion that no such amendment could be allowed.

The order being proper and correct does not require

any interference.

9.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SH