Judgment · High Court

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the Munsiff No .1 at Dibrugarh in Title Suit No.207 of 2007. The petitioner sought to amend the plaint by moving an application under Order V I Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for inserting paragraph 17A and Paragra ph 19 in the original plaint. The application is objected to by the respondent/d efendant and then rejected by the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner is now in a revision petition. Admittedly, trial in the suit has commenced and the original plaintiff, the fath er of the petitioner was examined and cross examined. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner passed away. The present petitioner was brought on record as a le gal representative of the deceased. By the amendment sought to be made, the petitioner seeks to bring on record a de ed of family arrangement which was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar , Dibrugarh on 25.5.2007 which is about 2 years after the original suit is filed . During the life time of the original plaintiff, the deed of family arrangement was not brought on record, but after the death of the original plaintiff, the p etitioner now seeks to bring the deed of family arrangement on record. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that af ter the trial has commenced, the Trial Court should not ordinarily allow an amen dment in the proceedings unless it comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. After going through the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I find that there is no whisper why the deed of family arrangement could not have been brought on record in spite of due dili gence. That apart, it is not possible to accept that the original plaintiff, the father of the petitioner, was not aware of the deed of family arrangement since it was entered into by him during his life time. Since the ingredients of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not fulfilled, I am not inclined to set aside the order dated 11.1.2011 passed by t he Trial Judge. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed.