916122, 9:56 PM Del HC | Permission to amend writen slatement afer pains evidence denied in view of proviso lo Order 6 Rule 17 CPC| S. Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff's evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Delhi High Court: Pratibha Mt. Singh, smised a peston Hed agains the order ofthe tial court whereby it ha ejected the petionr-efeadan’s application tinder Order 6 Ril 17 CPC amendment of pleadings esking amendment in ther writen sateen ‘The instant suit which wn les for specif performance n 2005 had long and chequered histor. The ptitione, in 3005, ha ed an application fr mpleadment arpa in the proceedings, Subsequent the petitioner had led an appliaton under Order 6 Rule xa the time when the pleintis evidence had been commenced "This appiation was rejected bythe ial cour. Ratnech Rana, Advent apesring forthe petitioner soph touge tit the amendment wish ns sought now had arisen bess some questions were not permite > be put tothe plains witness incrose-examination Per contra, Ra Garg, Ashish Garg and LS, Rana, Advocates representing the plaints, vehemently opposed the pple for amendment ‘The High Court noted that nil the psioner was given arestrictd ght to lee writen statement but the wien statement which was led was beyond the bert tfven bythe Court Tha ed ta considerable delay in the matter. The evidence by the pati eosmenced in 2047 and concaed in 2018 Though the pplication fr ‘mendmen was edn 2017, Rsemed to have been ged and presed only afer the ros-xaminatn ofthe pants witnesses has conclude, ‘Notably the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 stats: “Provided that no application for amendment sal be allowed after he ria has commenced unless the Court comes tthe conclusion that in spite of due diligenee, he arty could nt have raised the mater before the eommencerent of ial” erasing the record and eonsdering the subssons made the partes, the High Court thatthe writen statement being ought tobe amended now wat na aly hopelessly barred but was ao beyond the iherty which was inital ranted, The trl cout, therefore rightly dismissed the eppliation for amendment. fer he ‘oeluson a the plans evidence, such an amendment could ot be perited is view fhe proviso to Order 6 Rue 7 CPC. [Naresh Kumar. Bee Sagh, 2020 SCC Ontine Del 398, decided on 38-01:2020] hitps lawn sccontine.comvblog/post!2020/02/03/del-he-permission-o-amend-writenstatement-aterplaintifs-evidence-deniedinwview-of-proviso.... 1/4