Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
IA. No. 10706/2007 (U/O 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC)
1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking amendments to the plaint. The fact of the matter is that the trial had commenced in this case sometime in 1998. The learned counsel for the defendants has raised an objection to this application being allowed on the ground that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 would come into play and such an amendment cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced. The said proviso stipulates 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 the trial. In response to this, the plaintiff who appears in person, submitted that the proviso would not apply inasmuch as the amendment was brought about in the year 2002 when the trial had already commenced. His second submission is that even if the proviso applies, the court has power to allow the amendment to do substantial justice between the parties.
2. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties on both sides, I am of the view that this application cannot be allowed. The reasons are that the amendment was brought about in 2002 and would apply to all pending suits as well as future suits. In the suits where the trial had already commenced, the amendments could only be allowed if the court came to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties seeking the amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In the present case, the application itself states that the plaintiff, being under a bona fide impression and due to inadvertence, missed to incorporate the details of the change in the salary package of the relevant levels of employees of the defendant No. 1. This is stated in paragraph 6 of the application. It is further stated in paragraph 7 that the plaintiff has been able to collect from reliable sources the salary structure of the relevant different levels [L-13 to L-16] of the employees of the defendant No. 1 which promotion prospects the plaintiff allegedly had during the period 1992 to 2004. It is stated that the details that the plaintiff intends to incorporate includes the estimated annual package payable and levels in the period referred to above as well as the gross income of the plaintiff for the corresponding period. It has not been indicated in the application as to when this information came to the knowledge of the plaintiff and as to whether he did not have this information at the time of the commencement of the trial and as such could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. On the other hand, as indicated above, the plaintiff has admitted his inadvertence in missing to incorporate the details of the change in the salary package as already mentioned above.
3. After the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17, an amendment can only be allowed, after the trial has commenced, if the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. Nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the plaintiff could not have raised these matters before the commencement of the trial or that the plaintiff had exercised its due diligence but in spite such due diligence it did not have the material available before the commencement of the trial. In these circumstances, this amendment cannot be allowed. This application is dismissed.
