Back
High Court Of Delhi
ASHOK K.GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
ROTARY INTERNATIONAL - Respondent
Interim Application 11194 of 1992
Decided On : 10/20/1992
AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - WRITTEN STATEMENT AND REPLY TO APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING AMENDMENT - RELEVANT AND NECESSARY AMENDMENTS ALLOWED - COSTS IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against three defendants, challenging the election of defendant No. 3 as the District Governor of Rotary International District 3010. The defendants filed applications for amendment of the written statement and reply to the application for injunction, seeking to add new pleas and make corrections.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the applications for amendment, subject to payment of costs by the defendants. The court held that the proposed amendments were relevant and necessary for the just decision of the case, and that the defendants had moved the applications at the earliest opportunity.
Issues: 1. Whether the proposed amendments were barred by limitation? 2. Whether the proposed amendments were necessary for the just decision of the case? 3. Whether the applications for amendment were moved with a view to delay the proceedings? 4. Whether the opposite party had been taken by surprise? 5. Whether the proposed amendments would set up a new case? 6. Whether the amendments could be allowed without injustice to the opposite party?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the proposed amendments were not barred by limitation, as they were moved at the earliest opportunity. 2. The court held that the proposed amendments were necessary for the just decision of the case, as they would enable the defendants to fully plead their case. 3. The court held that the applications for amendment were not moved with a view to delay the proceedings, as they were moved before the date fixed for filing of the replication and rejoinder. 4. The court held that the plaintiff had not been taken by surprise by the proposed amendments, as they were similar to the amendments proposed in the reply to the application for injunction. 5. The court held that the proposed amendments would not set up a new case, as they were elaborations of the facts already pleaded. 6. The court held that the amendments could be allowed without injustice to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff could be compensated by way of costs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications for amendment, subject to payment of Rs. 2,000.00 as costs to the plaintiff.
( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of four I. As. , viz. IAs. 9743. 9744, 11193 and 11194/92. moved by the defendants 1 and 2 under Order6, Rule 17, read with Section 151 CPC.
( 2 ) BY way of IA 9743/92 a prayer has been made for amendmentof the written statement while IA 9744/92 is for amendment of the replyto the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC. By way of IA 111 93/92 defendants 1and2 have prayed for amendment ofia 9744/92 while IA 11194/92 seeks amendment of IA 9743/92.
( 3 ) MR. Ashok K. Ghosh, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration andpermanent injunction against three defendants Defendent No. 1 is Rotaryinternational District 3010 while Defendant No. 2 is Mr. J. R. Jindal,district Governor, Rotary International. Defendant No. 3 is Mr. Deepakkapoor who is stated to have been elected to the post of District Governorof District 3010 on 9. 2. 1992, which election has been challenged in this Suit. The plaintiff has claimed the following reliefs in the Suit :- 1sl
1. To declare the election of defendent No. 3 to the office/postof District Governor of District 301 Oof defendant No. 1 heldon 9. 2. 92 as void, illegal and inoperative ; and
2. To pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendantno. 3 from acting as District Governor of Rotary District 3010of Rotary International for the Rotary year 1993-94 in pursuance of election held on 9. 2. 1992.
( 4 ) THIS Suit came up for hearing on 25. 5. 1992 when summons inthe suit and notice of the application for injunction, viz. IA 8718/92 wereissued for 8. 7. 1992. The case came up for hearing on 8. 7. 92 and wasadjourned to 24. 7. 92 to enable the plaintiff to file replication and rejoinder. It may be noted that the written statement and reply were filed by defendants 1 and 2 on 7. 7. 92. Before the case could be taken up on 24. 7. 92 IAs. 9743 and 9744/92 were filed by defendants 1 and 2 on 20. 7. 92. These applications have been opposed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, who hasinter alia pleaded that the applications for amendment have been movedwith an ulterior motive to cause prejudice to the plaintiff and to prolongthe determination of the matter, which is of utmost urgency. It has furtherbeen pleaded that the application seeking amendment contained evasivedenial, which is barred by Order 8, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code and that the defendantshave chosen to incorporate evidence in contravention of the provisionsunder Order 6, Rule 2 and on this ground alone the applications are liableto be dismissed.
( 5 ) THE plea taken up by the defendants 1 and 2 had been that theamendments sought are by way of further elucidation of pleas already taken,besides taking a new plea with regard to the Suit being barred by principlesof acquisence. waiver and estoppel. It has also been pleaded that no newfacts are being pleaded by way of amendment and the application has beenmoved at the earliest.
( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and defendants1 and 2. I have also carefully gone through the pleadings as also the documents. As already referred to, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed theirwritten statement as also the reply to the application for injunction beforethe date fixed in the Suit. Replication and rejoinder have not been filedas vet by the plaintiff and, thus, there has not been any delay in movingthe application.
( 7 ) IT would at this stage be appropriate to refer to various factswhich have to be kept in view while deciding applications for amendmentof the pleadings. They may conveniently be formulated as under ;-
1. Has there been a delay in moving the application for a mendment?
2. Whether the proposed amendment would be barred by limitation ?
3. Whether the proposed amendment would be necessary forjust decision of the case ?
4. Whether the application for amendment has been moved witha view to delay the proceedings ?
5. Whether the opposite party has been taken by surprise ?
6. Whether the proposed amendment woul
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
