The court cannot suo motu amend the pleadings. The power to amend pleadings is specifically provided for in the Code under section 153 and Order 6 Rule 17 and therefore Court cannot look to any inherent powers of the Court.

Yogeshwar Dayal, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision against the order of the trial court dated 13th October, 1 972, whereby the trial court suo motu allowed an amendment in a reply filed by the plainuffs-decree-holders to the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Ruls 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the decree passed against them and to raise a new plea subsequently.

( 2 ) THE decree dated 25th November, 1966 was pasted against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 10 for money where the present petitioners were judgment-debtors Nos. 7 and 9. On the petitioners coming to know the decree they filed an applicat on under Order 9 Rule 13 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Proeedure for setting aside the decree passed on 25th November. 1966.

( 3 ) IT was alleged in the application that the pstitioners had come to know of the decree on or about 9th December, 1968 It was pleaded that they were not served at all in the suit and had no knowledge of any kind whatsoever about the proceedings of the sdit It was submitted that in spite of non-service exparte proceedings were taken against them and exparte decree was passed which was liable to be set aside. The application was filed on or about 1st January, 1969 and reply to the same followed by a replication was also filed. Volumunous evidence was recorded and the case was thereafter posted for arguments from time to time. On or about 29th April, 1972 an application was filed purporting to be undersection 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing an issue as under :

"is the application not maintainable because the defendants are bound by the decree which was passed against their partners on coatest ?"it was alleged in the application that a very important legal objection to the maintainability of the judgment-debtors application under Order 9 Rule 13 was lost sight of ; that defendants 1 to 8 were served as partners and some of them chose to contest while other like the present petitioners did not choose to fight the case personally It was submitted that from the contents of the plaint and the judgment it would be seen that the decree was against all the persons who remained in the firm after the plaintiffs-decree holders retired and who constituted the new partnership. It was further submitted that it is misnomer to call it an ex-parte decree and as stated earlier the aforesaid additional issue was sought to be framed.

( 4 ) THE trial court by the present order held that the issue sought to be raised is not a ouce question of law but it is a mixed a uestion of law and fact and where the contention of the decree holders is as to the nature of decree on the basis of the pleadings it cannot be decided or touched upon at that stage, and dismissed the application but at the end of the order it observed as under :-

"however, this is a technical plea and since the final arguments have not been heard, I think it better to allow the plaintiffs so suo motu amend the reply filed by him to the application under order 9 Rule 13cpc and to raise a plea specifically. . . . . . but the decree holder is allowed in the discretion of this court to amend the reply filed by him to the application under Order 9 Rule 13cpc and to raise the objection under the present application but cond tionally on payment of Rs. 20. 00 as costs. To come up on 14th November, 1972 for amended reply. "

( 5 ) THE judgment-debtors refused to accept the Costs and have come up to this Court in revision. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Gaja Nand, has argued that the court could not suo motu allow the amendment. It was submitted that the amendment could be allowed only on a proper application being filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to amend the reply along with the proposed amended reply and thersafter a reply being called for from the petitioners and decision baing given in accordance with the well stablished principles for allowing or disallo wing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document