Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.
Chanaki Sao Alias Chanakia
Versus
Renu Singhaniya
C.R. No. 1184 of 2005 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
Amendment - Civil Revision application - Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Section 15 of the BBC Act - 1986 PLJR 1144 - 1992(2) PLJR 195 - 1989 PLJR 1273 - 1989 PLJR 381 - Amendment of written statement after defence struck off - Illegality in exercise of jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed an interlocutory application to implead the defendants who were left out in the revision application. The revision application was filed against the order allowing amendment of the written statement by the defendants to add the rate of rent being paid to the ex-landlord at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month since 1962. The petitioners contended that the amendment was unjustified as the defence of the defendants had been struck off earlier.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment of the written statement after the defence was struck off was impermissible and amounted to changing the basis of the case. The court held that the lower court had acted illegally in allowing the amendment petition of the opposite parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment of the written statement with respect to the rate of rent was permissible after the defence of the defendants had been struck off.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the law allowed only the defence against ejectment qua-tenant to be struck off, and it was permissible for the defendant to raise questions relating to title and rate of rent. However, the court found that allowing the amendment after the defence was struck off was illegal.
Final Decision: The revision application was allowed, and the order allowing the amendment of the written statement was set aside. The lower court was directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter within the shortest possible time.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The main legal ruling is that amending the written statement after the defence has been struck off is impermissible, as it amounts to changing the basis of the case [judgement_subject].
The court found that the lower court's decision to allow such an amendment was illegal and exercised without proper jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The amendment in question involved adding a different rate of rent, which was not challenged or raised earlier in the proceedings, especially after the defence had been struck off for non-compliance with deposit orders (!) (!) .
The law permits a defendant to raise issues related to title and rent rate even after the defence against ejectment is struck off, but it does not support amendments that fundamentally alter the case's basis at a late stage (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that allowing such amendments when the defence has been struck off, and the defendant has failed to deposit the ordered rent, constitutes illegal exercise of jurisdiction and disrupts the proper course of litigation (!) (!) .
The revision application was allowed, and the order permitting the amendment was set aside, with a direction to expedite the trial and dispose of the matter promptly [judgement_subject].
The court also clarified that the scope of permissible defences after a defence is struck off is limited to issues like title and rent, and not to amendments that change the fundamental case or dispute earlier orders (!) (!) .
The legal principle established reinforces that amendments which alter the core basis of the case after the defence has been struck off are illegal and cannot be permitted [judgement_subject].
These points collectively summarize the court's view that amendments to written statements after the defence is struck off are impermissible unless they pertain to issues still open for argument, and that such amendments, when made to change the case's foundation, are illegal.
1. The interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioners for impleading opposite parties 2nd set and 3rd set who were defendant nos. 3 to 6 in the court below. It is submitted that due to oversight, the said persons who were parties in the court below have not been made parties in the revision application.
2. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that the said defendants, who have been left out and whose names have been given in paragraph no. 3 of the interlocutory application, shall be added as defendant-opposite party nos. 3 to 6 in the Civil Revision application.
3. I.A. No. 3857 of 2007 is accordingly allowed.
4. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Since the revision application has been filed against the order allowing amendment application of opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to the written statement, there is no necessity to issue notice to and hear the newly added defendants-opposite parties.
5. The plaintiff-petitioners have filed this revision application against the order dated 10.5.2005 passed by Munsif, Lakshisarai in Eviction Suit No. 6 of 2001 by which he has allowed the amendment petition filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant-opposite parties for adding the rate of rent being paid to the ex-landlord at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month in the written statement since 1962.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order is without any justification and in the face of clear direction of this Court passed in the earlier civil revision filed by the contesting defendants-opposite parties, i.e., C.R. No. 1132/2004, in which after rejecting that revision application this Court had directed by order dated 28.9.2004 that the court below should take up the hearing on day to day basis and dispose of the suit.
7. It is stated by learned counsel that by order dated 10.4.2002 the petition filed under Section 15 of the BBC Act by the present plaintiff-petitioners was allowed with a direction to the defendant-opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to deposit in Court the arrears of rent from the month of May, 2000 as well as the current rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month and on failure to comply with the said order the defence of the defendants was to be struck off. Against the said order, the opposite party filed C.R. No. 731/2002 which was dismissed on 11.11.2003. The opp. parties did not deposit the amount and on the other hand, filed an application under Order 7, Rule 7 CPC which was also dismissed. Against the same they filed C.R. No. 1132/2004 which was dismissed by order dated 28.9.2004 with the direction by this Court to expedite the disposal of the suit as stated above. Thereafter by order dated 10.4.2005, the court below struck off the defence of the petitioners on the ground that the amount had not been deposited as directed by order dated 10.4.2002 and against the same C.R. No. 1860/2004 filed by the opposite parties was also dismissed by this Court on 11.1.2005.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defence of the opposite parties having been struck off it was not open to the court below to have permitted any further amendments with respect to rate of rent in the written statement of the defendants. It is submitted that at no stage earlier the amount of rent being Rs. 1000/-was challenged by the opposite parties either in the court below or in the three civil revisions that had been filed by them earlier. For the first time, an attempt is made to introduce a story of rate of the rent being Rs. 100/- instead of Rs. 1000/-which is not permissible in view of the defence of the defendants having been struck off. It is further submitted that the court below in the said circumstances ought not to have allowed the amendment after orders of striking off the defence had been passed by the court below and upheld by this Court.
9. Learned couns
AI
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
