Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 733 - SC - Indian LawsApplication under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement - seeking permission of the Court to file a written agreement executed between the parties - Long delay in filing the application after closing of evidence and arguments - HELD THAT:- It is clear that unless the party takes prompt steps, mere action cannot be accepted and file a petition after the commencement of trial. As mentioned earlier, in the case on hand, the application itself came to be filed only after 18 years and till the death of her first son Sunit Gupta, Chartered Accountant, had not taken any step about the so-called agreement. Even after his death in the year 1998, the petition was filed only in 2004. The explanation offered by the defendant cannot be accepted since she did not mention anything when she was examined as witness. As rightly referred to by the High Court in Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs and Others, [2005 (9) TMI 618 - SUPREME COURT], this Court cautioned that delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings would also be a relevant factor for allowing or disallowing an application for amendment of the pleadings. As observed, the suit filed in the year 1986 is for a right of passage between two portions of the same property dragged for a period of 21 years. In spite of long delay, if acceptable material/materials placed before the court show that the delay was beyond their control or diligence, it would be possible for the court to consider the same by compensating the other side by awarding cost. As pointed out earlier, when she gave evidence as D.W.1, there was no whisper about the written document/partition between the parties. On the other hand, she asserted that partition was oral. Now by filing the said application, she wants to retract what she pleaded in the written statement, undoubtedly it would deprive the claim of the plaintiff. We are also satisfied that she failed to substantiate inordinate delay in filing the application that too after closing of evidence and arguments. All these aspects have been considered by the High Court. We do not find any ground for interference in the order of the High Court, on the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the same. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the stand taken by both parties in the suit and it is for the trial Court to dispose of the same uninfluenced by any of the observation made above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
|