Back
2009(7) Supreme 333
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ,
Revajeetu Builders & Developers — Appellant
versus
Narayanaswamy & Sons & Others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6921 of 2009.
(Arising out of SLP (c) No.1552 OF 2007)
Decided on : 9-10-2009
Facts of the Case :
Suit for recovery was filed by appellant against respondents for recovery of Rs.52,97,111/- with interest at rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of suit till payment . Appellant also claimed that it be declared absolute owner of the scheduled property on the basis of the sale deed executed by the respondents in favour of appellant after obtaining permission from the State of Karnataka under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,1976. Public interest petition was filed challenging said transfer of land . This court in those proceedings held that the sale deed executed by respondent in favour of appellant was held to be invalid and inoperative. After the institution of the suit, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 had been repealed. After the Act had been repealed, appellant filed an application for adding two additional paragraphs as 2(A) and (B) and to delete certain paragraphs in the plaint and also to delete the prayer (a), (b) and (c).Said application was allowed by Trial Court. Writ Petition thereagainst was allowed by High Court holding that appellant while seeking permission to amend the plaint was trying to introduce a new case which was not his case in the original plaint
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts’ discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment. The other important condition which should govern the discretion of the Court is the potentiality of prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to other side. Ordinarily, if other side is compensated by costs, then there is no injustice but in practice hardly any court grants actual costs to the opposite side. The Courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings but court’s powers must be exercised judiciously and with great care. While deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments . Application for amendment dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- as the respondents were compelled to oppose the amendment application before different Courts . Appeal having no merit were dismissed,.
The Supreme Court of India, in a civil appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 1552 of 2007, considered a challenge to the Karnataka High Court's order dated 16.9.2006 setting aside the trial court's allowance of an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. (!) (!) (!) (!) The appellant (original plaintiff) had filed a suit in 1996 for recovery of Rs.52,97,111/- with 18% interest, or alternatively Rs.19,12,500/- with interest, and a declaration of absolute ownership of scheduled property based on a sale deed dated 30.9.1987 executed after permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. (!) (!) That sale deed was declared invalid by the Supreme Court in prior public interest proceedings. (!) Post-repeal of the 1976 Act, the appellant sought to amend the plaint by adding paragraphs 2(A) and 2(B) detailing exemptions under Section 20(1) of the Act and permissions for sale of excess land, deleting certain paragraphs and prayers (a)-(c), and inserting new prayers declaring respondents as trespassers/licensees from 1.4.1988, seeking eviction/mandatory injunction for possession of the building, and permanent injunction against interference. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) The trial court allowed the amendment on 5.4.2003. (!) The High Court, in Writ Petition No.36550/2003 under Article 227, reversed it, holding that the amendment introduced a new case altering the suit's character after four years, withdrew admissions, and prejudiced respondents' rights. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) In the appeal, the Court heard arguments on the amendment's necessity post-repeal, lack of prejudice, and liberal approach versus respondents' contentions on changing the cause of action, void sale deed admission under Section 65 Contract Act, and respondents' partial admission in written statement. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) After extensive analysis of Order VI Rule 17 principles—including historical context, misuse for delay, and factors like bona fides, prejudice, limitation bar on new claims, and costs—the Court held that amendments must be necessary for determining the real controversy, cause no irremediable prejudice, and not fundamentally alter the suit's nature. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Applying these, the amendment was rejected as it sought to displace original admissions, introduce a new case post-delay, and prejudice respondents. (!) The appeal was dismissed as meritless, with Rs.1,00,000/- costs imposed on appellant for forcing respondents to litigate the application across courts. (!)
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.36550 of 2003.
3. Brief facts in nutshell are as under: The appellant (original plaintiff) filed an Original Suit no. 2265 of 1996 before the XXXI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore against the respondents (defendant nos. 1 to 10) for recovery of Rs.52,97,111/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of suit till payment. The appellant alternatively had taken the plea that if the court for any reason comes to the conclusion that a decree for a sum of Rs.52,97,111/- cannot be passed as prayed by the appellant against respondents (original defendant nos. 1 and 2), then the court may at least pass a decree for Rs.19,12,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the date of realization against the respondents.
4. The appellant also claimed that it be declared absolute owner of the scheduled property on the basis of the sale deed dated 30.9.1987. The sale deed was executed by the respondents in favour of the appellant after obtaining permission from the State of Karnataka under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.
5. A petition in public interest was filed by one S. Vasudeva which ultimately came up before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1454-56 of 1993 challenging the aforementioned transfer of land. This court in those proceedings held that the sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant on 30.9.1987 is held to be invalid and inoperative. It may be pertinent to mention that after the institution of the suit, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed.
6. After the Act has been repealed, the appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking leave of the trial court to add two additional paragraphs as 2(A) and (B) and few prayers and to delete certain paragraphs in the plaint and also to delete the prayer (a), (b) and (c). Paragraphs 2(A) and (B) are set out as under:
“2(A). With the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, the first defendant firm was prohibited from holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limits. As provided by the said Act, such vacant land, in excess of ceiling limits, was liable to be acquired by the State Government. Therefore, the first defendant firm applied to the State Government for exemption, under section 20(1) of the said Act, and sought permission to hold excess vacant land to an extent admeasuring 16194 square metres. Vide Government Order dated 17.07.85, in exercise of its power under section 20(1) of the said Act, the state government permitted the first defendant firm to hold the excess vacant land. Subsequently, as stated in para 4 hereinafter, the first defendant firm made another application to the state government to exempt the balance excess vacant land admeasuring 3444 square metres and the same was permitted by the state government vide its order dated 18.04.87. Thus, the entire extent of vacant land in excess of ceiling limits admeasuring a total aggregate extent of 19638 square metres was exempted, by the state government, under section 20(1) of the said Act.
2(B). Thereafter, the defendant firm approached the plaintiff and offered to sell, to the plaintiff, an extent of 5 acres 24 guntas in survey nos.6/1 and 6/2, Dasarahalli, VI Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, together with building thereon. This extent of 5 acres 24 guntas comprised of 19638 square feet of excess vacant land, in addition to the land with buildings and vacant land within ceiling limits. The first defendant firm, therefore, obtained permission from the state government under orders dated 06.03.87 and 18.04.87 to sell to the plaintiffs, the excess vacant land admeasuring 19638 square metres, as set out in paras 3 and 4 he
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
