CPC- Order VI R 17 Ajendraprasadji N. Pande v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N., AIR 2007 (SC) 806 In the written statement there is a denial that defendant No. 1 wanted to handover his seat or office to defendant No. 2, his son. The insertion proposed in draft amendments is that defendant No. 2 was appointed in 1984 as the successor of defendant No. 1. The two read together mean that though defendant No. 1 had in 1984 appointed defendant No. 2 as his successor, defendant No. 1 had no intention at present to handover the seat/office to defendant No. 2. In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 712 wherein this Court held that delay on its own, untouched by fraud is not a ground for rejecting the application for amendment opposite party to be compensated by costs. . No facts are pleaded nor any grounds are raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence these matters could not be raised by the appellants.