SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Surender Singh – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. – Respondents
CM(M) 1045 of 2023 & CM Appl. 33946 of 2023
Decided On : 03-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Gaurav Rathor, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
None, for the Respondent.

Clarity and decipherability are crucial in applications for amendments to pleadings, and lack of clarity may lead to dismissal of the application.

Headnote:

Amendment of Pleadings - Civil Procedure - The court upheld the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the application for amendments to the written statement, citing that the proposed amendments were not decipherable and did not provide clarity on what was being amended, added, or deleted. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application with a tabular representation and justification for the proposed amendments.

Fact of the Case:

The petition challenged the Trial Court's order dismissing the application for amendments to the written statement in a civil suit.

Finding of the Court:

The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, stating that the order suffered from no infirmity and directed the petitioner to pay the costs imposed by the Trial Court. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application with tabulation and reasons for seeking the proposed amendments.

Issues: The issues revolved around the decipherability of the proposed amendments to the written statement and the necessity for clarity in the application for amendments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing clarity and decipherability in applications for amendments to pleadings, and upheld the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the application due to lack of clarity.

Final Decision: The petition along with the pending application was disposed of, with the petitioner granted liberty to file a fresh application for amendments to the written statement.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral):

1. This petition impugns the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi (`Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 6359/2016, titled as Smt. Vijay Aggrawal v. Sh. Surinder Malik & Ors., whereby the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') was dismissed. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

    "12. Present facts in hand are analysed on threshold of the observations made above. In the instant matter, defendant no.2 virtually intended to substitute substantially the existing written statement with in the form of amended written statement. A perusal of the proposed amendment would show that each and every para of the preliminary objection of original written statement namely para no. 1 to 4 are sought to be substituted by new 10 paras and para no.3,5,7 and 10 of reply on merits are sought to be substituted by new paras. No attempt has been made by the defendant no.2 to point out what is sought to be omitted, altered, substituted or added in the proposed amendment. The lines, phrases and words which are being added or deleted have not been mentioned in the present application. It is not possible for the court to decipher from reading of the application as to what is being amended or what is being deleted or what is being added. Hence, it is not possible to find out as to whether any new facts has been introduced or existing fact has been deleted or whether any admission made is sought to be replaced or retracted by the defendant no.2 in the garb of present application. Defendant no.2 cannot be permitted to replace the substantial existing pleadings with new pleadings. It is also not possible to make out whether the proposed amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Hence, no ground is made out to allow the application."

(Emphasis Supplied)

2. The learned counsel for the Respondent has now placed before this Court on 25.07.2023 a tabular comparison of the original written statement and the proposed amendments.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks liberty to file a fresh application under Order 16 Rule 7 CPC before the Trial Court with the said tabular representation and setting out the justification in the application for seeking the proposed amendments so as to enable the Trial Court to appreciate and adjudicate the pleas of the Petitioner.

4. This Court has perused the order of the Trial Court and is of the opinion that the said order suffers from no infirmity. The Trial Court has observed that the amendments sought by the Petitioner herein are not decipherable and therefore the application was dismissed. The order dated 21.05.2018 is, therefore, upheld and the Petitioner is directed to pay the costs as imposed by the Trial Court vide the said order.

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has informed this Court that issues have not been framed in the suit and the matter is next listed before the Trial Court on 22.08.2023 for hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the Petitioner herein.

6. The Petitioner herein is granted liberty to file an appropriate application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with the tabulation filed before this Court and setting out the reasons for seeking the said proposed amendments. The Trial Court is requested to consider the said application, if filed, within one (1) week, in accordance with law uninfluenced by the order dated 21.05.2018. If no application is filed within one week, the liberty granted by this order shall stand revoked.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the amendments proposed by the Petitioner or the maintainability of the amendment at this stage of the proceedings.

8. With the aforesaid directions and liberty reserved to the Petitioner, the present petition along with pending appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top