IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Yogesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Davender Kumar Relan & Ors. – Respondents
CS(OS) 252 of 2013
Decided On : 12-06-2023
CPC - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 16 - [AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS] - [CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Order VI Rule 16] - The court allowed the amended written statement to be taken on record subject to a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the name of 'DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund' within two weeks. The defendants violated the rules of pleadings, but the amendments sought were necessary for adjudication of the suit. The court imposed a cost on the defendants as a deterrent while taking the amended written statement on record.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to strike off the pleadings in the written statement dated 04/12/2019, alleging that the defendants made unwarranted changes prejudicial to the plaintiff without seeking the permission of the Court. The defendants filed a fresh written statement incorporating new paragraphs and contents in place of their previously filed written statement, beyond the corresponding amendments of the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the defendants violated the rules of pleadings by amending the written statement beyond the scope of law defined in Order VI Rule 16 of CPC. The amendments caused prejudice and embarrassment, disturbing the fair trial of the suit and giving the defendants an undue advantage over the plaintiff. The Court allowed the amended written statement to be taken on record subject to a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the name of 'DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund' within two weeks.
Issues: Whether the amendments and alterations made by the defendants in their written statement are violative of the rules of pleadings and are subject matter of object of this Court under Order VI Rule 16 of CPC? Whether all the amendments made by the defendants are unnecessary?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the defendants violated the rules of pleadings by amending the written statement beyond the scope of law defined in Order VI Rule 16 of CPC. The amendments caused prejudice and embarrassment, disturbing the fair trial of the suit and giving the defendants an undue advantage over the plaintiff. The Court allowed the amended written statement to be taken on record subject to a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the name of 'DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund' within two weeks.
Final Decision: The amended written statement of the defendant/non-applicant is directed to be taken on record subject to a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the name of 'DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund' within two weeks. The instant application stands dismissed. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
I.A. No. 11118/2020 (under Order VI Rule 16 CPC)
1. The instant application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC") has been filed on behalf of applicant/plaintiff seeking the following relief:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that in the interests of justice, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to strike off the pleadings in the written statement dated 04/12/2019 which have been pointed out by the applicant/plaintiff in para 6 of this application: and
Pass such other/further orders in favour of applicant/plaintiff as deemed fit and proper in facts of the case."
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The material facts of the instant application are that the applicant was allowed to amend the plaint while allowing IA No. 10184/2019 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The amendments allowed by the Court were enumerated in paragraph 40(A) to 40 (I) of the amended plaint dated 17th July, 2019.
3. The defendants filed a written statement dated 04th December, 2019 to the amended plaint, wherein they ought to have replied to the newly added paragraphs in the amended plaint. It is alleged that the defendants, instead of filing written statement only with respect to the amended portion of the plaint, chose to file a fresh written statement incorporating new paragraphs and contents in place of their previously filed written statement, without seeking the permission or leave of the Court. The defendants have chosen to incorporate changes corresponding to the paragraphs which were not amended in the plaint.
4. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the unwarranted changes in the written statement are prejudicial to the plaintiff as these are an afterthought of the defendants and many admissions of fact are being attributed to the plaintiff. The amendment application bearing I.A. No. 9752/2014 was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd May, 2015 and amended written statement dated 7th May, 2014 was taken on record. It is alleged that in garb of this written statement to amended plaint, again some new facts and defences have being incorporated without permission of the Court. Hence, the instant application has been filed on behalf of applicant/plaintiff.
SUBMISSIONS
(on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff)
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant/plaintiff submitted that the unwarranted additions/alterations in the written statement to amend the plaint are mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the instant application, which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"(i) Para 1 of preliminary objections has the following addition:
"The said submission is fortified by the recent and startling revelation in the criminal investigation pending against Plaintiff vide FIR 182/2018 PS Neb Sarai;".
(ii) Para 1 of the preliminary objections has the addition of sub-paras (a) to (h).
(a) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly consider that the alleged/forged agreement which forms the foundation of the present Civil Suit had never been executed and the plaintiff, has forged the same and it is for that reason that the plaintiff has never filed the original agreement as no such agreement exists.
(b) That aggrieved by the act of forgery and fraud committed by the plaintiff, the defendants filed a criminal complaint Chandrakanta Relan Vs. Yogesh Kumar & Ors. against the plaintiff and his accomplices in view of the blatant forgery committed by the plaintiff.
(c) That after a detailed hearing, vide order dated 27.4.2018, the Ld. M.M. South was pleased to pass orders under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. and directed registration of FIR against the plaintiff herein and the said order culminated in FIR 12/2018 PS: Neb Sarai.
(d) That aggrieved by the lack progress in investigation of the said FIR, the defendants herein again approached the Court of Hon'ble M.M. U/S 156 (3) Cr. P.C. for monitoring progress of the investigation.
(e) That vide status report filed by the Ld. I.O. on 04.11.2019; it ha
The defendants violated the rules of pleadings by amending the written statement beyond the scope of law defined in Order VI Rule 16 of CPC. The Court allowed the amended written statement to be take....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the curable nature of defects in the written statement and the importance of adjudicating upon the defendant's defence while ensuring time-bound di....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to allow amendments should be exercised judiciously, and no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has com....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of due diligence in seeking amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial, as well as the purpose of the amendment to cu....
Defendants cannot file an additional written statement to an amended plaint if their right to do so has been previously forfeited, as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
The right to file an additional written statement is contingent upon amendments in the plaint and must not introduce new claims, as established by prior court orders.
The court emphasized that amendments to Written Statements should be allowed liberally, especially when the suit is at an early stage, correcting the Trial Court's misapplication of res judicata prin....
The amendment application was dismissed as it was found to be mala fide, aiming to introduce new pleas and withdraw previous admissions, lacking due diligence and justification.
A categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. The attempt to change the entire stand from denying the execution of the agreement to admitti....
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.