LexAJENDRAPRASADJI N. PANDE AND ANR. versus SWAMI KESHAV PRAKESHDASJI N. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AJENDRAPRASADJI N. PANDE AND ANR. A v. SWAMI KESHA VPRAKESHDASJI N. AND ORS. DECEMBER 8, 2006 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALT AMAS KABIR, JJ.] B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VJ Rule 17 (as amended by Act 22 of 2002)-Amendment of pleadings-After commencement of trial-Permissibility of-Plaintiffs filed a C civil suit seeking a declaration that in view of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.05.2002, the defendant ceased to be the Acharya was not entitled to enjoy any of the privileges or rights of Vadtal Gaadi-Pursuant to that Resolution a new Acharya was appointed on 31.01.2003-Defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement~The trial D court dismissed the amendment application of the defendants on the ground that the trial had commenced and the defendants were not due diligent in preferring the amendment application-The High Court affirmed the decision of the trial court-Correctness of-Held: The matters sought to be raised by way of amendment by the defendants were well within their knowledge-This shows absence of due diligence on the part of the defendants-Hence E amendment application rightly rejected. Words & Phrases: "Commencement ofirial''-Meaning of-Jn the context of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. F The respondents-plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that in view of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.05.2002 appellant No.I-defendant No. 1, having ceased to be the Acharya, was not entitled to enjoy any of the privileges or rights in respect of the said Vadtal Gaadi. On G 31.01.2003, a new Acharya was appointed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the Resolution dated 11.05.2002. On 24.11.2005, the appellants moved an applicatio~ under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the written 477 fl , 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. A statement. The trial court dismissed the amendment application of the appellants on the ground that the trial had commenced and the appellants were not due diligent in preferring the amendment applicatio~. The High Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence the appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial. The facts of the present case show that the matters which are sought to be raised by way of amendment by the appellants C were well within their knowledge and manifests the absence of due diligence on the part of the appellants disentitling them to relief. (491-G; 492-B, C] 2. No facts are pleaded nor are any grounds raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence D these matters could not be raised by the appellants. Under these circumstances, the case is covered by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 and, therefore, the relief deserves to be denied. The grant of amendment at this belated stage when deposition and the evidence of three witnesses is already over as well as the documentary evidence is already tendered, coupled with the fact that the appellants' application praying for recasting of the issues E having been denied and the said order never having been challenged by the appellants, the grant of the present amendment as sought for at this stage of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the contesting respondents- original plaintiffs and hence it is in the interest of justice that the amendment sought for be denied and the petition be dismissed. (495-F, G, H; 496-A) F Ba/dev Singh v. Manohar Singh, [2006) 9 SCC 498, relied on. B.K. Narayana Pillai. v. Parameswaran Pillai, (2000) l SCC 712, Salem Advocate Bar Association. v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344; Kai/ash. v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480; Smt. Saiyada Mossarrat. v. Hindustan Steel Ltd G AIR (1989) SC 406; Labour Commissioner. v. Burhanpur Tapti Mills, (1974] 7 SCR 484; Jamatraj Kewalji Govani. v. State of Maharashtra, (1967) 2 SCR 716; T.R. Sharma. v. Prithvi Singh, (1976( 2 SCR 716; Mahalaxmi Rice Mills. v. State of U.P., [1998) 6 SCC 590; Chairman, Canara Bank. v. MS. Jaera, AIR (1992) SC 1341; H.J. Leach. v. Jardine Skinner, (1957) SCR 438 and Gurdial Singh. v. Raj Kumar Aneja., AIR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.