CM(M)No.588/2010 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 588/2010 Date of Reserve : 27th July, 2011 % Date of decision : 16th September, 2011 ASHOK K RAIZADA ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Ms. Suparna Rai and Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advs. versus MANJUL RAIZADA ..... Respondent Through : Mr. S.L. Ladi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5th February, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby his application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed on the ground that the trial has already commenced and with due diligence, the petitioner could have raised this matter before the commencement of trial. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner discovered some documents mentioned in para 6 of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17th May, 2009 whereupon the application seeking CM(M)No.588/2010 Page 2 of 3 amendment was filed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial has already commenced. The cross-examination of the respondent has concluded and the application has been filed by the petitioner to fill up the lacunae. It is submitted that the proposed amendments are barred by the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the trial has already commenced and with due diligence, the petitioner could have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 4. The parties are living separately since 30th July, 2007 when the petitioner forced the respondent and her daughters to leave the house. The petitioner has raised serious allegations attacking the character of the respondent. It does not appear to be plausible that the petitioner would not have cleaned/scanned the house for about two years after the respondent left the matrimonial house on 30th July, 2007. However, even assuming the petitioner’s contention to be true, it shows sheer lack of due diligence. In that view of the matter, the proposed amendment is clearly hit by the Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petitioner’s application for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner’s application does not appear to be bona fide and has been filed with the intention to delay the trial which has already commenced. CM(M)No.588/2010 Page 3 of 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgments in the case of Davinder Singh vs. Surjit Malhotra, 126 (2006) DLT 102; Vidyabai vs. Padmalatha, JT 2009 (1) SC 303; Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84; Rajesh D. Darbar vs. Narasingrao Krishanji Kulkarni, (2003) 7 SCC 219; Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale, AIR 2007 SC 2577 and North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das, (D), AIR 2008 SC 2139. However, the aforesaid judgments do not help the petitioner in view of the clear finding of this Court that the application is not bona fide and with due diligence, the petitioner could have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 6. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. J.R. MIDHA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2011/mk