Back
1994 Supreme(Pat) 294
PATNA HIGH COURT
RAM NANDAN PRASAD, J.
Hira Lal Prasad - Petitioner
Vs.
Satya Narain Mahto & ors - Opposite party
Civil Revision Case No. 76 of 1994
Decided on : 8.9.1994
For the petitioner: M/s Vijay Kumar Sinha No. 1, Ravi Shushan Pd. Sinha and Satya Nand Shukla.
For the opposite party : Mr. Raghav Prasad.
Amendment of the plaint is not permissible if it would cause prejudice to the defendant by displacing him from an admission made in the plaint.
Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 6 RULE 17 - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - SUBSTITUTION OF PARAGRAPHS - EFFECT - PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT - AMENDMENT NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed an eviction suit against the defendant on the ground of personal necessity and default in payment of rent. The defendant denied the allegations and claimed that he had advanced Rs. 30,000/- to the plaintiff for the construction of the shop and that the rent was to be adjusted against the advance. During the trial, the plaintiff filed a petition alleging that the defendant had interpolated two lines in the plaint. However, the petition was not pressed and the parties adduced evidence on the basis of their pleadings. After the judgment was deferred twice, the plaintiff filed an amendment petition seeking to delete the two lines from the plaint. The trial court allowed the amendment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment of the plaint was not permissible as it would cause prejudice to the defendant by displacing him from the admission made in the plaint regarding the advance of Rs. 30,000/-. The court also noted that the amendment was not bona fide as it was filed after the judgment was deferred twice and the parties had already adduced evidence on the basis of their pleadings.
Issues: Whether the amendment of the plaint was permissible in law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. and others vs. M/s Lodha Ramand Co. (AIR 1977 SC 680), which held that substitution of paragraphs in the pleadings to displace the plaintiff completely from the admission made by the defendants in the written statement is not permissible as it would prejudice the defendant by denying him the opportunity to extract the admission from the defendants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application and set aside the trial court's order allowing the amendment of the plaint.
R. N. Prasad, J. - The defendant has filed this civil revision application against the order dated 8.12.1993 passed in Eviction Suit no. 8/89, whereby the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff has been allowed.
2. The plaintiff filed the eviction suit for eviction of the defendant from the shop (suit premises) on the ground of personal necessity and also for default in payment of rent. The case of the plaintiff was that there was a Pucca shop and a thatched shop on Plot no. 205. He took Rs. 30,000/- from the defendant for construction of the shop and for giving the same to the defendant. The defendant was inducted tenant of both the shops on a monthly rental of Rs. 90/- and 60/- respectively on 1.10.83. The defendant paid rent till August, 1988 and thereafter he stopped payment of rent from the month of September, 1988. In the plaint it was also stated that he required the suit premises for business by his grandsons who are sitting idle after finishing their studies. The defendant on demand refused to pay the rent as well as to vacate the suit premises.
5. The defendant appeared in the suit and denied the allegation made in the plaint. His stand was that Plot no. 205, the suit premises, belonged to the plaintiff and it was a Parti land. He approached the plaintiff for letting out the suit premises which was agreed upon by the plaintiff and the said vacant land was let out to the plaintiff on a monthly rental of Rs. 50/-. He also advanced Rs. 10,000/- and subsequently on demand Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of construction of a shop to the plaintiff. Thereafter the shop was constructed and was let out to the defendant with an assurance that the entire amount would be adjusted towards the monthly rent of the suit premises.
4. The suit was taken up for hearing. After examination of seven witnesses of the plaintiff, a petition was filed by the plaintiff on 11.7.91 stating therein that the defendant in connivance with the office has got paragraph 1 of the plaint interpolated by adding last two lines therein. It was also stated in the petition that the defendant had obtained certified copy of the plaint twice before filing of the written statement and hence the defendant should be directed to file both the certified copies which would show the interpolation. A rejoinder to the said petition was filed by the defendant denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. The certified copies obtained by him contained the same averments and thus there is no interpolation. The petition was not pressed by the plaintiff and the evidence of both the parties was closed. Arguments of both the parties were heard on 25.8.92 and the suit was posted for judgment on 31.8.92.
5. On 31.8.92 judgment was not delivered on the ground that the petition filed by the plaintiff on 11.7.91 relating to committing forgery by adding the two last lines in paragraph 1 of the plaint is pending for disposal. Thereafter the case was adjourned on several dates for disposal of the said petition. On 9.11.92 the counsel for the plaintiff submitted that since the case is ready for argument and judgment, he does not prefer to delay the disposal of the suit for the sake of enquiry on the point of interpolation, as alleged by him in the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that there is no need to dispose of the petition dated 11.7.91 as he is interested in final disposal of the suit.
6. Thereafter the suit was posted for argument on 14.12.92. After arguments of both the parties, the case was again posted for judgment on 12.1.93. On 12.1.93 the judgment was not delivered and the court directed the defendant to file both the certified copies which he obtained prior to filing of the written statement. The defendant pursuant to the said direction filed both the certified copies of the plaint on 18.1.93.
7. The case thereafter was adjourned on several dates and again the court started hearing arguments of the parties afresh. While the arguments of t
