Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46970 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4771 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Khairullah Respondent :- Smt. Hajira And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Agendra Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Shri Agendra Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.4 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Under challenge are two orders dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while considering an election petition preferred under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'), whereby an application for amendment moved by the petitioner seeking to amend its written statement was rejected. This order was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision before the District Judge, Shravasti and the revisional Court by means of order impugned dated 11.07.2025 has dismissed the revision and being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the instant petition. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner wanted to amend its written statement elaborating a stand which was taken by the defendants and in case if such an amendment would have been allowed, it would be helpful for effective adjudication of the controversy. Apart from the fact that the amendment in any manner did not change the nature of the proceedings or it amounted to withdrawing any admission and in such circumstances the amendment application should have been allowed. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two Courts have not entered into the substantive merit regarding consideration of an application for amendment rather what has prevailed in the minds of the two Courts is that earlier the petitioner had filed an application for amendment which was allowed on 26.10.2023 and, therefore, the petitioner is prevented from moving the second application and this reasoning is patently erroneous and for the said reasons the orders deserve to be set aside. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be noticed that the proceedings which had commenced were under Section 12-C of the Act of 1947. It is also not disputed that the issues had been framed and the evidence had commenced. It is, at this stage, that the present petitioner by means of his application dated 06.02.2024 sought an amendment in the written statement, a copy of the said application has been brought on record as Annexure No.5. From a perusal of the proposed amendment, it would reveal that there is no elaboration of the stand taken by the petitioner rather it only incorporates a submission which is legal in nature and by referring to the decision of the Apex Court. Thus, it would be seen that insofar as the proposed amendment is concerned, there is no factual basis to it and it is merely a submission which can be raised by the petitioner at the time of his arguments and that has got nothing to do with the pleadings or even leading of evidence. It may be right to contend that mere allowing of an earlier application ipso facto does not prevent the petitioner from moving a subsequent application for amendment, but at the same time what is to be noticed is that any amendment which has to be allowed by the Court is to be seen in light of the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC which has undergone an amendment in the year 2002 and a proviso has been appended which mandates the person seeking an amendment after the commencement of the trial to indicate what prevented the person from raise this amendment earlier. In this light, if the application (Annexure No.5) is seen, it would reveal it has no reference of any bonafides nor there is any contention to indicate as to what prevented the petitioner from raising this earlier. Be that as it may, this Court does not find that there is no error committed by the two Courts for the reason that first and foremost the compliance of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC has not been made. Moreover, the grounds that is sought to be incorporated is purely argumentative in nature which can always be considered by the Court while hearing the matter on merits for which amendment is not necessary. Accordingly, the instant petition sans merits and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench