Heard Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction which was decreed. In appeal preferred by the defendants, petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6.9.2010.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amendment sought in the plaint was only clarificatory in nature and it was not likely to change the nature of the pleadings and as such the lower appellate court ought to have allowed the same.
The lower appellate court has rejected the amendment application in view of the proviso to Rule 17 of order 6 C.P.C. which provides that unless the party satisfies that despite due diligence he could not raise or plead the facts sought to be introduced by amendment, no amendment can be allowed after the trial has commenced. In the present case not only the trial has commenced but has ended and it is at the appellate stage that the amendment was sought without making out a case of exercise of due diligence as contemplated by Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. In the amendment application no reason has been assigned as to why such pleadings could not be raised earlier.
In view of above, I find no error in the order impugned.
Petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.10.2010 piyush