CR/122/2016 on 29 December 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Revision Petition No.122 of 2016

Date of Decision : December 29, 2016

Shyam Lal

….Petitioner. versus

Savitri Devi and others

…Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal, Advocate.

Sanjay Karol, Judge

Notwithstanding the industry reflected by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in inviting attention to the following decisions of the apex Court, this Court finds itself not to be persuaded to interfere with the impugned orders dated 27.4.2016 and 13.6.2016 (Annexures P-6 & P-7), passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.11254 of 2013 (157-I/13), titled as Shyam Lal v. Savitri Devi & others, whereby application for amendment stands dismissed.

(i) Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & others, v. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, (2009) 5 SCC 713;

…2…

(ii) South Konkan Distilleries & another v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & others, (2008) 14 SCC 632;

(iii) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by LRs, (2008) 8 SCC 511; (iv) Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & others v. K.K. Modi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 385; and (v) Salem Advocate Bar Assocaition, T.N. v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344.

2. Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: “17. Amendment of pleadings.

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

PROVIDED that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

3. Trial Court has aptly dealt with all issues. While returning its findings, it found the petitioner- applicant trying to fill in the lacuna, at a belated stage, by seeking amendment of the pleadings, incorporating a plea of coercion, undue influence, fraud, leading to the passing of the judgment in question.

…3…

4. Subject matter of the action impugned by the plaintiff, being the judgment and compromise decree, came to be rendered only on the basis of compromise, terms whereof, not only came to be made known to the parties, but they having fully understood the same, appended signatures, and that too, after consultation with their respective counsel.

5. Significantly, the petitioner-applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Pleadings are conspicuous to such effect. Plea sought to be incorporated is also not necessary for adjudication of issues framed by the trial Court.

6. Decisions of the apex Court, as noted above, are not applicable, as they were rendered in the given facts and circumstances, and more so in view of the prevailing statutory provisions.

7. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Court below on 20.1.2017.

In view of the above discussion, the petition stands dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.

( Sanjay Karol ), December 29, 2016(sd)

Judge.