Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 2229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT GOA BENCH
C.V. Bhadang, J.
Harinder Pal Singh Sandhu, Son Of Singh Sandhu - Appellant
Versus
M. John Amaro Fernandes, Son Of Late Joaquim Mariano Fernandes - Respondent
W.P. No. 351 of 2018
Decided On : 11-06-2018
Jatin Ramaiya, Adv., Ashwin D Bhobe, Adv.
Courts should allow the filing of additional written statements as consequential amendments to the plaint, without introducing new facts or pleas.
Headnote:
Additional Written Statement - Consequential Amendment - The court allowed the petitioners to file an additional written statement as a consequential amendment to the plaint, despite the initial dismissal of the application by the lower court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their application seeking permission to file an additional written statement, which was deemed necessary due to a consequential amendment to the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the additional written statement was strictly by way of a consequential amendment necessitated by the amendment to the plaint, and there were no new facts or pleas introduced.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be granted permission to place the additional written statement on record, despite the initial dismissal of their application.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases of consequential amendment to the written statement, necessitated by an amendment to the plaint, the court should allow the filing of the additional written statement to the extent it is consequential in nature.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and granted permission to file the additional written statement as prayed, making the rule absolute with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
C.V. Bhadang, J -Leave granted to show the respondent no.6 as deceased and being survived by other respondents. The necessary correction to be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.
3. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 7/12/2017 (Below Exhibit D-32) by which, the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking permission to file additional written statement has been dismissed on the ground that on a singular date i.e. 28/4/2016, there was no plea from the petitioners (defendants) to file additional written statement.
4. In this case admittedly the plaint came to be amended. The additional written statement. is sought to be filed by way of a consequential amendment to the plaint. Normally in such a case where there is a consequential amendment to the written statement, (in pursuance of an amendment to the plaint), the same has to be allowed, to the extent it is consequential in nature.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner needs to be granted permission to place the additional written statement on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that there are no new facts or pleas introduced by way of additional written statement and the written statement is strictly by way of a consequential amendment necessitated by the amendment to the plaint. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed:
ORDER:
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside.
(iii) The application Exhibit D-32 is allowed as prayed.
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
