Spl.C.S.No.226/2005. 1. Ratnakar Vitthal Patvardhan and etc.1 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

..2.. Spl.C.S.No.226/2005, Exh.113Competent Authority. It is further contended by defendants that, plaintiffhas mutated his name in respect of the agricultural land of MaujeGovardhan and Chandshi by practicing fraud and the defendants haverecently came to know about said fraud and therefore, they havepreferred the proposed amendment.4. Learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that,defendants were not having knowledge about the contents of theproposed amendment and therefore, the provision of Order6 Rule17 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure will not be applicable to the presentsituation. It is further argued by learned counsel for the defendants that,the proposed amendment is necessary for just decision of the suit andeven though it is inconsistent with the previous pleading of thedefendants it can be allowed. In support of his contention he has placedreliance on the case of B.K.N.Pillai, V/s. P.Pillai and another, reportedin AIR 2000 S.C. 614 and on the case of Baldev Singh & ors. etc. V/s.Manohar Singh & Anr. etc., reported in AIR 2006 S.C. 2832.5. At the outset, it would be relevant to mention here that, inthe plaint itself plaintiff has shown his status as an agriculturist and sincethe filing of the written statement i.e. 12.2.2005 defendants have notraised any objection regarding the status of the plaintiff as anagriculturist. On the contrary, in Para25 of the written statementdefendants have specifically contended that, plaintiff is having 10 acreagricultural land at Mauje Govardhan and Chandshi. It means that,defendants were well aware about the status of the plaintiff as anagriculturist.Now, it is the contention of the defendants that, the plaintiffhas mutated his name in the 7x12 extract of the agricultural land ofMauje Govardhan and Chandshi by practicing fraud. However, theproposed contention of the defendants appears to be after thought and ithas no concern with the subject matter of the suit. It is worth to notethat, plaintiff has filed copy of draft and sale deed below list Exh.119 to
..3.. Spl.C.S.No.226/2005, Exh.113show that, plaintiff has purchased the agricultural land in the year 1993.It is very surprising that, the stamp paper for the sale deed of the year1993 were purchased in the name of defendant no.1. Thus, I find muchsubstance in the contention of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff hadpurchased the agricultural land in the year 1993 with the help ofdefendant no.1 who was acting as an advocate for the plaintiff. Viewed bythis angle also, I do not find much substance in the contention ofdefendants that, they were not having knowledge about the status of theplaintiff as an agriculturist. Therefore, the proposed amendment appearsto be after thought as well as it is nothing but an effort from the side ofthe defendants to delay the hearing of the suit.6. Apart from above facts and circumstance, it is material tonote that, the suit is at the stage of crossexamination of the defendantno.1. In view of the provision of Order6 Rule17 of the Code of CivilProcedure the parties to the suit can not be permitted to amend thepleadings after the commencement of the trial unless and until the party,proposing amendment, satisfied the Court that, despite due diligence thefacts pleaded in the amendment can not be brought on record. In thiscase, as stated above, defendants were aware about the status of theplaintiff as an agriculturist and the contention of the defendants that, theplaintiff has played fraud and mutated his name in the 7x12 extract doesappears to be probable and relevant, in view of the above facts andcircumstances. Therefore, the reason assign by the defendants, in thisapplication, does not satisfied that, despite due diligence defendantscould not bring the proposed facts in their written statement before thecommencement of the trial. Hence, I am of the opinion that, theproposed amendment is hit by the proviso to Order6 Rule17 of theCode of Civil Procedure.7. In view of the above discussion it is clear that, the proposedamendment is neither necessary for the just decision of the suit nor it isfiled before commencement of the trial and defendants have also failed
Page 1: ..1.. Spl.C.S.No.226/2005, Exh.113S
Page 5: ..5.. Spl.C.S.No.226/2005, Exh.113s

Spl.C.S.No.226/2005. 1. Ratnakar Vitthal Patvardhan and etc.1 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?