2019 PLRonline 3503 ; Full Judgment with detailed headnotes for Online Subscribers (opens automatically) (Click to subscribe Trial Pack)
CPC O. 6 R. 17 – Though I fully agree that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC having been filed at a stage when admittedly the respondent-plaintiff had testified as regards her examination-in-chief, the bar contained in proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure would normally stand in her way, thereby debarring her from seeking an amendment at that stage, especially with 7 years having gone by after the suit was first filed; however, the petitioners not being able to deny the factual position that even in paragraph 7 of the original plaint, it had been stated by the plaintiff that the loss caused to her by fraudulent acts of the defendants can only be compensated by way of damages and delivery of possession of the property back to her, that would show that what has been stated in paragraph 1 thereof (the plaint), to the effect that she is absolute owner in possession of the suit property, is possibly a drafting error – However, since it cannot be positively determined that what is stated in paragraph 1 is the result of deliberate drafting to avoid higher court fee, and undoubtedly in paragraph 7 it has been stated that the plaintiff deserves delivery of possession of the suit property, in my opinion the impugned order allowing amendment need not be interfered with, but heavy costs need to be imposed upon the plaintiff, prior to her amendment in her plaint being permitted – Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 40.
