1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. :: J U D G M E N T :: D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.4/2008 Amrit Lal Taya Vs. Vishwanath & Ors. Date of Judgment :: 15-01-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. R.K. Thanvi, for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, for respondent no.2. Heard Mr. R.K. Thanvi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 1.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in its writ jurisdiction whereby and whereunder, the writ petition was dismissed with cost. Short questions giving rise to this application and appeal are as follows: The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract in the competent civil court in the year 1982. The suit proceeded. At the stage of plaintiff's evidence an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought for pertained to a written agreement dated 21.2.1980 in between the parties. The learned trial court on appreciation of facts and keeping in view the fact that amendment application was filed after 2 24 years of institution of the suit, dismissed the amendment application. The order rejecting amendment application was challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ application was also dismissed on the ground that attempt of the plaintiff to get the plaint amended after 24 years does not appear to be bona fide, rather much prejudicial to the interest of the contesting defendants. The writ application accordingly was dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the contesting defendants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the plaintiff in all, bona fide filed the amendment application in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for appropriate amendment of the plaint to support the oral agreement referred in the plaint, and therefore the learned trial court could have allowed the amendment application as amendment of plaint is allowed at any stage of the trial. From the order impugned and the materials on record, it appears that the plaintiff himself tried to delay the suit as the amendment application was filed almost 24 years of institution of the suit and no cogent ground was shown in the amendment application. The amendment sought for by bringing on record a written agreement would not have been of much avail to the plaintiff in view of such averment made in the plaint which could have been supplemented by adducing evidence. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the approach of the learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the writ application does 3 not appear to be in contravention of the law or against the facts. It is true that amendment of plaints are allowed liberally but at the same time, after amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties are required to show the reasonableness and bona fide for seeking amendment after long lapse of time. It was a case where amendment was sought for after inordinate delay of 24 years, that also without any plausible and bona fide reasons. For the reasons aforementioned therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. However, the order awarding cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the contesting defendant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is waived. [MOHAMMAD RAFIQ],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen