Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GITA MITTAL, C.HARI SHANKAR, JJ.
PRADEEP MEHRA - Appellant
Versus
BCH ELECTRIC LTD - Respondent
FAO(OS) 118/2017 and CM No.29903/2017
Decided On : 21-08-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Prakash and Mr. Kunal Gosain, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Ms. Jasleen Oberoi and Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to the plaint and written statement in a civil suit must adhere to well-settled principles, including confining the written statement to the extent permitted in the amended plaint and not permitting the withdrawal of admissions already made.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Procedure - Order VI Rule 7, Order II Rule 8, Order VI Rule 17, Order VIII Rule 1 - The court considered the issue of whether the defendant in a civil suit has an untrammelled right to bring a written statement and take pleas which were never taken or withdraw admissions made in the written statement after the amendment of a plaint. The court held that the written statement must be confined to the extent permitted in the amended plaint and cannot travel beyond that. It also emphasized that admissions already made should not be permitted to be withdrawn. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Kedar Nath & Ors. vs. Ram Parkash & Ors. and highlighted the principles that an amendment of a written statement is not an absolute right and must bear the scrutiny of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit and sought to amend the plaint, resulting in objections and subsequent amendments to the plaint and written statement. The appellant objected to the substantial changes made by the respondent in the amended written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's amended written statement contained substantial changes from the original, including withdrawn admissions and new pleas, which were not in compliance with the principles established by the court. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to file a written statement in accordance with well-settled principles.
Issues: The issues revolved around the extent of amendments permitted to the plaint and written statement, withdrawal of admissions, and incorporation of new pleas.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the written statement must be confined to the extent permitted in the amended plaint and cannot travel beyond that. It also highlighted the principle that admissions already made should not be permitted to be withdrawn. The court referred to the Full Bench decision and underscored that an amendment of a written statement is not an absolute right and must bear the scrutiny of the court.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the respondent was directed to file a written statement in accordance with the well-settled principles. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
GITA MITTAL, J.
1. The short issue to be considered in this matter is, as to whether upon amendment of a plaint to be effected under Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant (respondent before us) in a civil suit has an untrammelled right to bring a written statement and take pleas which were never taken or withdraw admissions made in the written statement which was filed to the plaint before its amendment. This issue is so basic and the answer thereto has to be in the negative.
2. In the present case, the plaintiff (appellant before us), along with two others, had filed CS(OS)No.1856/2015 against the respondent herein.
3. In these proceedings, the defendants took objection under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. by way of I.A.No.3600/2016 regarding joinder of the plaintiffs and causes of action. The ld. Single Judge by an order dated 19th September, 2016 permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint and directed trifurcation of the suit into three suits with the following directions :
“9. The Court considers it appropriate to permit the Plaintiffs in terms of Order II Rule 8 of the CPC to amend the plaint which in effect would mean trifurcating the present suit into three suits. Consequently, the following directions are issued:
(i) Within a period of eight weeks
(a) An application will be filed seeking to amend the plaint in the present suit so as to re-cast it as a suit by Plaintiff No.1. The reliefs in respect of which court fees has been paid have already been set out in the prayer.
(b) two fresh suits be filed: one, in respect of the claim of Plaintiff No. 2 and another in respect of claim of Plaintiff No.3.
(ii) The Plaintiffs will not be required to pay any separate court fees, since they have already paid the applicable court fee.
(iii) It is made clear that as far as Plaintiff No.3 is concerned, since the claim is Rs.1,81,08,813/-, the fresh suit will be filed before the Court having appropriate jurisdiction, subject to the above condition regarding payment of court fee
(iv) The Defendant is barred from raising the plea of limitation in respect of any of the suits.”
4. The present appellant who was plaintiff no.1 in the original suit filed an amended plaint in purported compliance of the order dated 19th September, 2016. It appears that the respondents objected to the amendments effected by the appellant on the ground that they were beyond the scope of liberty granted by the ld. Single Judge by the order dated 19th September, 2016.
5. In view thereof, the appellant filed amended CS(OS)No.1856/2015 along with I.A.No.13953/2016 under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint to incorporate the pleas. In reply to I.A.No.13953/2016, the respondent objected to certain paragraphs of the amended plaint, especially to certain portions of paras 8 and 25. This application was allowed by an order dated 14th December, 2016 by the ld. Single Judge subject to filing of the amended plaint by the plaintiff strictly in compliance with the order dated 19th September, 2016. Thereafter the appellant/plaintiff filed a second amended plaint on 19th December, 2016 thereby making changes to paras 5 and 25 and deleting para 8.
6. The respondent herein, filed an amended written statement to the second amended plaint. The plaintiff made objections to the amended written statement by way of I.A.No.2567/2017 under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC before the Single Bench which application came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 16th March, 2017 and liberty was given to the respondent herein to file the amended written statement.
7. This appeal assails the order dated 16th March, 2017 on the ground that the ld. Single Judge has allowed the amended written statement filed by the respondent herein to be retained on record to which, as per the memorandum of appeal, the appellant/plaintiff had taken inter alia the following objections :
A comparison of the said Amended Written Statement with the ea
