IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Sunder Bhati – Appellant
Versus
Anil Choudhary - Respondent
CM(M) 1472 of 2022
Decided on : 05-01-2023
Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 - Amendment of pleadings - Court directs petitioner to file reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 before the Trial Court
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the order permitting the respondent to file an application for correction of pecuniary jurisdiction and modification of relief sought in the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The Court finds that the impugned order need not be interdicted as the proceedings have continued, and directs the petitioner to file a reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 before the Trial Court.
Issues: Interpretation of the impugned order, necessity of interdicting the impugned order, and directions to the petitioner to file a reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concludes that the impugned order need not be interdicted, and directs the petitioner to file a reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 before the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The present petition along with the pending application is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 56390/2022 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 1472/2022 & CM APPL. 56391/2022 (for stay)
3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the order dated 21.07.2022, whereby the learned Trial Court has permitted the respondent/ plaintiff to file an appropriate application for correction to be carried out with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction for purposes of relief of declaration and also to modify the relief as sought in the plaint.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 09.06.2022, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, 1908 filed by the petitioner was heard and an order was passed, however, without deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC in a logical manner. He submits that the learned Trial Court in the penultimate paragraph gave an advisory to the respondent/ plaintiff which was not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Learned counsel also informs that in pursuance of the impugned order, the respondent/ plaintiff has already filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908, seeking certain amendments.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order as well as order dated 09.06.2022, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served now in interdicting the impugned order dated 21.07.2022 inasmuch as the proceedings have continued thereafter and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908, has already been filed by the respondent/ plaintiff in pursuance of the impugned order.
7. This Court is also of the opinion that the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court ought to have reached its logical conclusion and it was not within the purview of the learned Trial Court to give an advisory to the respondent/ plaintiff.
8. Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to file its reply to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 before the learned Trial Court.
9. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise all objections including those which were raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 as well as those raised in the present petition challenging the impugned order. The learned Trial Court is directed to consider all the contentions which will be raised by the petitioner while hearing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908.
10. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present petition along with the pending application is disposed of.
The Court has the discretion to direct the petitioner to file a reply to an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, 1908 before the Trial Court.
The importance of complying with judicial directions and the requirement for the Trial Court to first pass orders on the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 before considering other ap....
The court has the discretion to allow the amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and parties have the right to challenge the dismissal of applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before t....
The main legal point established is the need for a liberal approach in allowing amendments to pleadings for just and effective adjudication, and the emphasis that a hyper technical approach should no....
Timely hearing of applications in civil proceedings is essential, with courts expected to adhere to deadlines and avoid unnecessary delays.
The court has the discretion to allow exemption from filing certified copies of annexures, subject to all just exceptions, and can direct the disposal of urgent matters in accordance with law.
A party has the liberty to withdraw an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 and file a fresh one, subject to the law of limitation.
The Court emphasized the necessity of filing cases in the appropriate jurisdiction, highlighting procedural delays should not hinder access to justice.
Urgent disposal of interim applications under relevant civil procedure rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.