Back
High Court of Calcutta
R. Bhattacharyya, J.
Bithi Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
Indira Chatterjee – Respondent
Decided On: Sep 23, 1993
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of Written Statement - Permissible - Court's Discretion - Factors Considered
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sought eviction of defendant, who succeeded to tenancy after the demise of the original tenant. Defendant filed a laconic written statement, later seeking to amend it to elucidate their claim. Plaintiff challenged the amendment, arguing it would disadvantage them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment of the written statement was permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court considered the principles of amendment of pleadings and found that the amended written statement did not change the nature and character of the suit or cause injustice to the plaintiff.
Issues: Whether the amendment of the written statement was permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment of the written statement was permissible as it did not change the nature and character of the suit or cause injustice to the plaintiff. The court noted that the original written statement was brief and the amendment sought to amplify it. The court also held that the plaintiff could not rely on the brevity of the original written statement as an admission of facts.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the impugned order was not erroneous or illegal and did not occasion failure of justice or irreparable injury.
1. THIS Revisional Application is directed against Order No. 41 dated 8. 8. 1985, passed by the 1st Court of Munsiff, Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 94 of. 1981, allowing the amendment of the written Statement.
2. TO embark on an enquiry, about the fate of the rival claims, a brief synopsis of the fact, in my view is essential.
The suit is a chronic dispute between the Landlord and the Tenant where the petitioner sought for eviction of the opposite party who succeeded to the tenancy after the demise of Girija Bhusan Chatterjee who was a monthly tenant of a portion of Premises No. 53a, Charak Danga Road, P. S. Belliaghata subject to payment of Rs. 50/- as rent per month payable according to English calendar.
3. DURING the currency of the suit the opposite parties 12 and 13 sold their right, title and interest in respect of the property. But an application preferred by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 10, however, succeeded. The opposite party, thereafter, put in a written Statement which was very much laconic in its approach but for elucidation of their claim in order to resist the onslaught of the allegations of the petitioner, another written Statement was put in which the Id. Court; below allowed.
4. THIS became the source of anxiety of the petitioner which drove her to this Court for redress of her grievances as the amendment of the written Statement will outweigh the claim of the petitioner.
The point for decision in this case is if the order complained of could be interfered with by the Court of Revision. The ld. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Banerjee has made a forceful contention that amendment of the written Statement after the filing of the written Statement will launch the plaintiff-petitioner into great disadvantage as the facts set out in the plaint, since not trammelled by the opposite party may likely to steel a march against the right of the plaintiff. The facts, since not disputed in the original written Statement, the. doctrine of non-traverse is to dominate the field. The opposite party in apprehension of such doctrine has put in the amended written statement which is pre-eminently a bar. The amended written Statement will work injustice on the plaintiff petitioner about the case made out in the plaint following which the petitioner has sought for a decree of eviction.
5. THE Id. Advocate for the petitioner has relied on three decisions to attack the order impugned:
6. THE first case relied upon by him is the case of Bhuramal Agarwalla. vs. Scania Dalurband Coal Co. Ltd, and Ors. 82 CWN, 1. The ratio decidendi of that decision as held by the Court was that leave to amend the written Statement should not be granted if the amendment would con very the defence into another of different and inconsistent character.
The next case relied on by him is the case of Swan Singh and Ors. vs Radha Kishan and Ors. AIR 1980, HP 8. The Court rejected the amendment as the pleas were new and ran counter to the original written statement.
7. THE last case relied on by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner is the case In re: Bhowanipore Gujrati Education Society, 1993 (II) C. H. N., 88, where the Court held that admission should not be allowed to be withdrawn unless such admission was made inadvertently and erroneously. But, his Lordship did not rule out amendment of the written statement, where admission could be withdrawn subject to the sufficient cause shown and the same when did not suffer from mala fide.
8. THE three decisions thus cited by Mr. Banerjee constitute a stumbling block for amendment of the written statement. It is a lamp which ways down the guiding factors for amendment of the pleadings.
I have meticulously gone through the decisions cited by him but the ratio decidendi of the decisions cited mainly verge on the principle that the court should be circumspect not to allow such amendments which will work injustice on the party. I have walked through the bosom of the plaint and the written statement but I do n
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
