Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
1. The petitioners / plaintiffs have filed a suit way back on 26.12.2003 and they closed their evidence on 21.02.2018 and thereafter, on 03.08.2018, the
plaintiffs have filed an application seeking relief to amend the plaint by addition of 19 defendants and other averments which has been rejected by the
trial Court finding no ground against which this writ petition has been filed.
2. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application for
amendment and he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh (2009)
10 SCC 626, in which their Lordships have held in paragraph -6 as under :-
6. It is also well settled that even if the amendment prayed for is belated, while considering such belated amendment, the court must bear in favour of
doing full and complete justice in the case where the party against whom the amendment is to be allowed, can be compensated by costs or otherwise.
(See B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai.) Accordingly, we do not find any reason to hold that only because there was some delay in filing
the application for amendment of the plaint, such prayer for amendment cannot be allowed.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs.
4. Proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC provides 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 and the said
proviso has been held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another 2009 (2) SCC 409.
5. The suit was filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs way back on 26.12.2003 and they have closed their evidence on 21.02.2018 and after a further delay
the application for amendment has been filed and that application is blissfully silent and it did not say that despite due diligence why the petitioners
could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial except saying that during preparation of final hearing, the above defect was noticed.
6. Indisputably, the application has been filed by the petitioners after commencement of trial. The petitioners have failed to assign plausible reason why
in spite of due diligence amendment application could not be made before the commencement of trial.
7. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
8. Thus, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.