Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Naemuddin – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Naved Yar Khan & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) 99 of 2022 & CM APPL. 5288 of 2022
Decided On : 24-04-2023
Order VI Rule 17, CPC - Amendment of pleadings - 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 - The court dismissed the application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, 1908 on the grounds of inordinate delay and latches and for lack of cogent reasons. However, the court partly set aside the impugned order in respect of the Will dated 14.09.1977 to be placed on record, subject to proof, and subject to costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner/defendant No.3 to the respondent/plaintiff within two weeks from today.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of the application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, 1908 and application under Order VIII Rule 1A r/w Section 151 CPC, 1908 seeking to file documents almost 12 years after the cause of action had arisen.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, 1908 on the grounds of inordinate delay and latches and for lack of cogent reasons. However, the court partly set aside the impugned order in respect of the Will dated 14.09.1977 to be placed on record, subject to proof, and subject to costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner/defendant No.3 to the respondent/plaintiff within two weeks from today.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be permitted to file documents almost 12 years after the cause of action had arisen, and whether the application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, 1908 should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the delay in seeking amendment of pleadings and the relevance of the documents sought to be filed. The court also referred to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 regarding the basis for permitting such amendments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, 1908 on the grounds of inordinate delay and latches and for lack of cogent reasons. However, the court partly set aside the impugned order in respect of the Will dated 14.09.1977 to be placed on record, subject to proof, and subject to costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner/defendant No.3 to the respondent/plaintiff within two weeks from today.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 25.11.2021 in CS No. 97202/16 titled `Mohd. Naved Yar Khan Vs. Shri Shahbuddin' whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, 1908 as well as application under Order VIII Rule 1A r/w Section 151 CPC, 1908 were dismissed on the ground that the documents as well as the amendment sought were highly belated, in that, almost 12 years had passed from the time cause of action had arisen to seek such reliefs.
2. Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that out of the documents now sought to be filed, the Will dated 14.09.1977 executed by Mohammad Hakim Khan in favour of late defendant No.2 Mr. Shahbuddin was already referred to in the written statement filed by late Shahbuddin on 18.04.2006.
3. Learned counsel submits that having regard to the fact that the said document was already mentioned in the written statement and relied upon by late Shahbuddin, and now the successor in interest i.e. the petitioner/defendant No.3, who is the son of Late Shahbuddin, there was no way the learned Trial Court could have deprived the petitioner/defendant No.3 from the right to file such documents despite passage of so many years.
4. Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel submits that the substratum of the defence of the respondent/plaintiff is based entirely on the Will and the interse disputes of the parties, would be decided on the authenticity and the veracity of the aforesaid Will.
5. On that basis, Mr. Bhasin submits that the Will ought to have been permitted to be placed on record. Learned counsel also submits that the opposite party could have been compensated by way of costs for such indulgence.
6. Learned counsel submits that the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 was necessitated on account of the fact that in para 19 of the written statement, where a reference to the aforesaid Will was made, erroneously the statement that the Will was bequeathed in favour of the wife of Late Shahbuddin was mentioned, in place of Late Shahbuddin himself.
7. Mr. Bhasin submits that it would be in accordance with law in case the Will is permitted to be placed on record, simultaneously with the permission to also amend written statement to that effect.
8. Learned counsel submits that though the said application was filed after the commencement of the trial, so far as the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the documents are relevant, the averments thereto also need to be amended accordingly.
9. Per contra, Mr. Rizwan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff vehemently opposes the submissions made by Mr. Bhasin.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that admittedly, the period of 12 years have elapsed as rightly observed by the learned Trial Court in preferring the application Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, 1908 as well as application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908.
11. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view the submissions made by Mr. Bhasin with respect to the petitioner/defendant No.3 adopting the written statement of the late Shahbuddin stated to have been filed on 18.04.2006, recorded vide the order dated 13.09.2011, the admission of the averments contained in the aforesaid written statement would deemed to have been in the knowledge of the petitioner.
12. Learned counsel submits having regard to the above fact, there is no way that the petitioner can be permitted to place on record any document after the passage of 12 years.
13. Learned counsel also submits that the story as to how the petitioner came in possession of the Will and other documents is also unreliable for the reason that the old box that is referred to by the petitioner and supposed to have been placed in the suit property, was lastly constructed by defendant No.2 who is in possession of the suit property.
14. Learn
The court considered the delay in seeking amendment of pleadings and the relevance of the documents sought to be filed, highlighting the importance of timely filing and the need for cogent reasons fo....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the courts to permit defendants to file their written statements and the need to decide suits on merits rather than technicali....
The admissibility of documents at any stage of the proceedings, the requirement for providing a plausible reason for delay, and the necessity of presenting original or certified copies of documents w....
Belated production of original document central to dispute allowed post-evidence if relevant to real controversy, to serve justice in family Will dispute, subject to costs and limited proof opportuni....
The delay in filing written statements should not include the time spent in pursuing legal remedies, and the court may allow written statements to be taken on record subject to the payment of reasona....
The court held that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC are directory, allowing written statements to be filed beyond prescribed delays in exceptional circumstances, particularly to serve the int....
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
