Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jasti Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
CHAKRESHWARI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MANOHAR LAL – Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos. 2343-44 of 2017 Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 4677-78 of 2015
Decided on : 10-02-2017
Rent Tribunal - Amendment of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 21 - Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a limited company, filed an eviction petition against the respondent, claiming eviction on the grounds of subletting and availability of alternative accommodation. After the close of evidence, the appellant filed two applications seeking to amend the eviction petition and to file additional documents in support of the amendment. The Rent Tribunal dismissed both applications, which was affirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the applications for amendment of the eviction petition and filing of additional documents. The court also granted the respondent an opportunity to make consequential amendment in the written statement and to file additional documentary evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Rent Tribunal and the High Court were justified in rejecting the two applications filed by the appellant for amendment of the eviction petition and filing of additional documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle established in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, which outlined factors to be considered while allowing or rejecting an application for amendment, such as whether the amendment is imperative for proper adjudication, whether it causes prejudice, and whether it fundamentally changes the nature of the case. The court found that the proposed amendment and filing of additional documents were relevant and necessary for deciding the rights of the parties involved.
Final Decision: The appeals succeeded, and the impugned orders were set aside. The applications for amendment of the eviction petition and filing of additional documents were allowed, and the respondent was granted an opportunity to make consequential amendment in the written statement and to file additional documentary evidence. The Tribunal was directed to conclude the proceedings within three months.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The main legal principle established is that parties are allowed to amend their pleadings at any stage of the trial with the court's leave, provided the proposed amendment is bona fide, relevant, and necessary for determining the rights of the parties involved (!) (!) .
In the specific case, the appellant, a limited company, sought to amend their eviction petition and to file additional supporting documents after the close of evidence. The amendments aimed to clarify the name of the respondent’s business and to introduce new evidence obtained from a government department (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that amendments should not alter the fundamental nature of the case or introduce a new cause of action. They should be imperative for the proper adjudication of the case, bona fide, and should not cause undue prejudice to the other party (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts also noted that even if there is some delay in filing amendments or additional evidence, such delay can be excused if the party provides sufficient explanation. The overarching requirement is that amendments and additional evidence are relevant, necessary, and bona fide (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the law permits parties to file amendments and additional evidence at any stage, including during appellate proceedings, provided they meet the criteria of relevance and bona fide intent (!) (!) .
In this case, the court found that the proposed amendments and additional documents were relevant, did not change the core nature of the case, and were necessary for a fair adjudication. As a result, the courts allowed the amendments, set aside the earlier dismissals, and directed the tribunal to conclude proceedings within a specified timeframe (!) (!) (!) .
The decision also included granting the respondent an opportunity to make consequential amendments and to file additional evidence in rebuttal, ensuring fairness in the process (!) .
The court awarded costs to the respondent and emphasized the importance of concluding the proceedings efficiently to deliver justice (!) .
These points collectively underscore the importance of flexibility in pleadings and evidence, provided the amendments are bona fide, relevant, and do not prejudice the opposing party or alter the fundamental issues of the case.
JUDGMENT
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Leave granted. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 8-1-2015 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal dated 26-2-2014 dismissing its application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code read with Section 21 of the Act respectively.
2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal.
3. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Rent Tribunal and the High Court were justified in rejecting the two applications filed by the appellant in their pending main eviction petition viz. one filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code read with Section 21 of the Act (Annexure P-6) seeking to amend their eviction petition and other filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code read with Section 21 of the Act seeking permission to file some additional documents in support of the amendment sought?
4. The appellant is the plaintiff/applicant whereas the respondent is the defendant/non-applicant.
5. The appellant a limited Company is the owner of the shop [details of the shop are described in Column 3 of the main Application No. 741 of 2005 (Annexure P-1)] (hereinafter referred to as “the suit shop”). The appellant has let out the suit shop to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 670.
6. The appellant has filed the eviction petition against the respondent under the Act before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur claiming eviction of the respondent from the suit shop. The eviction is claimed, inter alia, on the ground of subletting of the suit shop alleged to have been done by the respondent in favour of one “M/s Goel Iron and Hardware Store”. It is averred that the respondent has parted with the possession of the suit shop in favour of the alleged sub-tenant without the consent of the appellant and hence he is liable to be evicted from the suit shop. The other ground on which the eviction is claimed relates to availability of an alternative accommodation to the respondent in the city where he is carrying on his business.
7. The respondent filed his written statement. While admitting the tenancy, he denied material averments made in the eviction petition. The parties have adduced their respective evidence. The case is now at its closing stage.
8. As mentioned above, the appellant, after close of the evidence, filed two applications. One was under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code read with Section 21 of the Act wherein they sought to amend their main eviction petition. It was alleged therein that the appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking to find out the name under which the respondent is carrying on the business in their alternative accommodation in the city. It was alleged that recently they were informed by the Department concerned that the name of the respondent's shop is “Bright Iron Traders”. The appellant, therefore, sought permission to amend the eviction petition and substitute the name of the shop which was initially mentioned in the eviction petition to the one proposed in the amendment application. In support of the proposed amendment, the appellant filed another application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code read with Section 21 of the Act seeking leave of the Court to file the documents, which they claimed to have obtained from the Department concerned.
9. The respondent opposed these applications contending, inter alia, in his reply that firstly, both the applications were filed belatedly and secondly, neither the proposed amendment nor the documents sought to be filed are relevant for the disposal of the main case.
10. By the order dated 26-2-2
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
