Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1614

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.
Debobrata Mondal & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Pijush Banerjee and Ors. – Respondents
C.O. 3072 of 2018 With CAN 1 of 2023
Decided On : 06-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Supratim Laha Mr. Sumanta Biswas Mr. Bikash Shaw
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Amal Kumar Mukherjee Ms. Tithi Majumdar Ms. Anindita Banejee Mr. Sankrito Roy Mr. Washim Akhtar Dafadar Mr. Palash Kanti Chakraborty

Admissions made inadvertently in a written statement can be withdrawn to allow for a fair defense, ensuring justice is served.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Defendants sought to amend written statement to withdraw admission made inadvertently. Court found that admission was made due to inadvertence and allowed amendment for a just outcome. Court emphasized that all parties should have reasonable opportunity to defend. (Paras 1, 28)

(B) Legal principle on amendments - Discretion of the Court to accept pleadings that facilitate fair proceedings is well established, with emphasis on the requirement that amendments should not cause serious prejudice to the opposite side. (Paras 8, 29)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, defendants in a title suit, challenged the rejection of their amendment application concerning admissions in their written statement related to the property dispute over its ownership. They contended that the rejection was erroneous and sought to rectify inadvertent admissions.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the amendment application, highlighting the necessity of enabling a fair hearing and decision.

Issues: The pivotal issue was whether the defendants should be allowed to withdraw their prior admissions regarding the status of ownership and amend their statement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that admissions made due to inadvertence could be allowed to be withdrawn, emphasizing the importance of enabling defendants to defend their case without imposing undue hardships.

Result: The application for amendment was allowed, setting aside the previous order while not adjudicating the merits of the case.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petitioners' position (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the amendment of the written statement (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. understanding the legal basis for amendments (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
4. judicial precedence on amendments and admissions (Para 12 , 14 , 19 , 21)
5. principles governing amendments to written statements and the significance of inadvertent admissions. (Para 18)
6. court's discretion over amendments and admissions (Para 22 , 26)
7. the discretion of the court in allowing amendments and ensuring justice. (Para 24)
8. final ruling allowing amendment of written statement (Para 28)
9. conclusion on the expeditious disposal of the suit (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J:

1. The petitioners before this Court are defendants in a suit for declaration of title permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed and are aggrieved by the Order dated 31.07.2018 passed by Learned 2nd Civil Judge Senior Division at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas being Title Suit No. 124 of 2017.

2. The case of the petitioners/defendants may be summed up thus: The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed against the defendants/petitioners before the Learned 2nd Civil Judge Senior Division at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas being Title Suit No.124 of 2017 praying inter alia for the following reliefs:-

b) Decree for cancellation of the sale deed dated 28.03.2012 being Deed No. 2492 of 2012.

c) Cost.

d) Such other relief/reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled.

3. The petitioners/Defendants filed written statement to the plant. The plaintiff in connection with the suit filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an Order of Temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and from changing nature and character of the suit property and also restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property till disposal of the suit. The petitioners duly filed their written objection against the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By an Order dated 2nd December, 2014, the Learned Court below was inter alia, pleased to direct the parties to the suit to maintain status quo of the suit property with respect of the nature, character and possession of the suit property till 16.01.2015. Subsequently, the said ad-interim Order of status quo was extended from time to time and ultimately on 6th January, 2016 the Learned Court below was inter alia, pleased to direct the parties of the suit to maintain status quo in respect of nature and character and possession of suit property till disposal of the suit. The defendants/petitioners were busy in contesting the injunction application and they could not file their written statement in time hence on 29.04.2015, the Learned Court below was pleased to pass an Order to the effect that the suit will proceed ex-parte against the defendants. Subsequently, on 25.05.2016, the defendants/petitioners filed an application praying for vacating the Order for ex-parte proceedings of the suit and the same was allowed with costs. On 21.08.2015 the petitioners/defendants filed written statement in the suit denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The petitioners/defendants thereafter made application for amendment of the written statement before the Learned Court below to which the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed objection against such proposed amendment to the written statement filed by the defendants/petitioners.

4. By Order dated 31.07.