IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.: 171 of 2003. Reserved on: 18.09.2008. Decided on: 24.09.2008. Shri Parkash Chand. … … … Petitioner. Versus Smt. Nimi Devi and Others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate vice counsel. For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This petition is directed against the order dated 6.4.2000 passed by the learned Senior Sub Jude, Kullu in Civil Suit No.38 of 1991. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming herself to be the wife of Nanak Chand and entitled to inherit to his estate and for treating the sale deeds effected by the petitioner/defendant as null and void. The petitioner has filed application under Order 16 Rules Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 5 and 16 for production of the original partnership/compromise deed which was in custody of one Shri Mohinder Lal. This application was rejected on 15th January, 2000 by the learned Senior Sub Judge. The petitioner has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement. The application was contested by the plaintiff. The application was rejected by the learned Senior Sub Judge on 6.4.2000. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 6.4.2000. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal has strenuously argued that the order dated 6.4.2000 is not sustainable. His contention is that the learned Senior Sub Judge has failed to take into consideration the well settled principles laid down by the apex court while allowing or disallowing the application seeking amendment of written statement. Mr. Chander Shekhar has supported the order dated 6.4.2000. The civil suit was filed on 9.4.1991. The application under Order 16 Rules 5 and 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed during the pendency of the suit with the prayer that Mohinder Lal be directed to produce the original settlement deed/partnership deed, dated 23.3.1971. It was pleaded in the application that in the earlier civil suit No.204 titled Hira Lal versus Maina Devi which was pending before SJIC, Kullu was decided on the basis of compromise and a settlement deed (partition deed) dated 23.3.1971 was executed between the parties, i.e. Shri Hira Lal Gupta son of late Shri Prabhu Dayal, Shiv Ram Gupta son of late Shri Prabhu Dayal, Dr. Mrs. Nirmala Chand wife of Dr. Devi Chand Gupta, Smt. Maya Devi wife of late Shri Sant Ram and Parkash Chand son of late Shri Nanak Chand whereby the property was partitioned. The learned Sub Judge came to the right conclusion that the - 3 - settlement deed was not relevant and material for determining the controversy between the parties. The application was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge on 15.1.2000. The present application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioner on 7.3.2000. The learned Senior Sub Judge has fixed 7th March, 2000 for evidence of the petitioner/defendant. The plaintiff was not a party in civil suit No.204 in which the alleged compromise was arrived at between the parties. Since the plaintiff was not a party in civil suit No.204 any agreement/settlement arrived in that suit had no bearing on the present case. The petitioner/defendant had filed an application as noticed above under Order 16 Rule 5 and 16 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge by a reasoned order on 15th January, 2000. The matter can be viewed from another angle. The petitioner/defendant was throughout aware of the settlement/partition deed and the plea with regard to this should have been incorporated in the written statement at the earliest. The application preferred by the petitioner/defendant on 7.3.2000 was belated and the learned Senior Sub Judge has returned a correct finding that the same was filed to delay the proceedings. It is settled law by now that delay and laches on the part of the parties to the proceedings is also relevant factor for allowing or disallowing the application for amendment of pleadings. The suit was filed on 9.4.1991. The proposed amendment is not essential and necessary for determining the real point of controversy involved in the suit. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural - 4 - irregularity in the order dated 6.4.2000 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu, H.P. is now directed to decide the civil suit within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. No costs. September 24, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.