Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Monga, J.
Shyam Sunder and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Nina Goyal W/o Late Sh. Chandra Mohan Goyal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10579, 10581 of 2013
Decided On : 08-11-2023
Amendment of Written Statement - Civil Suit - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - 6 Rule 17 CPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice and the right of litigants to establish their cases.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioners, alleging that a decree was passed in their favor, and the defendants filed a written statement refuting the allegations. The defendants later sought to amend the written statement to include new facts they became aware of, but the application was rejected by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment of the written statement was necessary to bring on record the pending controversy inter se family members and that the petitioners should be afforded an opportunity to amend the written statement to ensure substantive justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the application for amendment of the written statement and the necessity of allowing the amendment to bring on record the pending controversy inter se family members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the procedure should not be given precedence at the cost of subjugation of substantive justice and that the valuable right of litigants to establish their cases by amending the written statement should not be taken away by the court except in cases of deliberate omission or failure to amend the written statement.
Final Decision: The court allowed the amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, set aside the impugned orders rejecting the application, and directed the petitioners to deposit the arrears of admitted rent before the Rent Controller.
ORDER :
By filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged two orders, both dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure-5), passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Suratgarh, whereby two applications in two separate suits filed by petitioners-defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioners-defendants for amendment of the written statement have been rejected. Since facts are analogous and issues raised therein are common, for brevity, recitals are taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10579/2013.
2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the petition.
2.1 Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioners, alleging, inter alia that on 02.04.2008, a decree was passed by learned Additional Dist. Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar camp, Suratgarh through which the shop in question situated at Goyal Chowk came in the share of respondent-plaintiff. It was further alleged that the said premises were rented to defendant No.1 who used to pay rent to the brother-in-law (devar) of the plaintiff, namely, Sh. Ravi Mohan. It was alleged that the defendant No.1 was informed about the said decree in the first week of May, 2008 and was requested to pay rent to the plaintiff as per the prevalent market rate. However, defendant No.1 neither paid the rent as per the prevalent market rate nor met the plaintiff. In December 2008, when the plaintiff approached defendant No.1, he denied the title of the plaintiff as the landlord and also refused to pay rent. It was further alleged that the plaintiff required the said shop for her bona fide requirements. Therefore, the present suit (Annexure-1) was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction.
2.2 The defendants-petitioners filed the written statement (Annexure-2), refuting the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that the shop in question was taken on rent from Dr. G.D. Goyal approximately 40 years ago, and following his demise, Ravi Mohan Goyal became their landlord. It was further alleged that they have been paying the rent to Ravi Mohan. The averments regarding bonafide need and arrears of rent were also denied.
2.3 After the suit was filed, petitioners obtained the decree dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure-3). A perusal of the said decree shows that the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise and the property was partitioned only between Nina Goyal and Ravi Mohan Goyal, with the rest of the parties refusing to take any share. A perusal of the said decree also reveals that the said decree is only a preliminary decree and if any party wishes to obtain a final decree in lieu of the preliminary decree, he/she will be required to submit the required stamps.
2.4 Later on, the petitioners came to know that the said decree is a collusive decree and has been obtained by concealing the registered partition-deed dated 30.03.1976 and without impleading all the legal heirs as party defendants; in fact, the sisters of husband of plaintiff Nina Goyal were impleaded as defendants. The petitioners also learned that the legal heirs of Dr. Ganpal Goyal filed a suit for cancellation of said decree in the year 2010, in which an interim order was passed. Thus, the decree, on the basis of which the present suit was filed is only a preliminary decree and final decree has not been passed as the required stamp has not been paid and till the final decree is passed, no right accrues to the plaintiff-respondent.
2.5 Petitioners were not aware about the aforesaid facts. They came to know about the said facts only on 05.02.2013, when Seema Goyal came to the Court of Additional Dist. Judge, Suratgarh in connection with the date of hearing of the suit filed by her for cancellation of collusive decree dated 02.04.2008 and the counsel for Seema Goyal informed the petitioners about these facts. Under such circumstances, petitioners could not incorporate these facts in the written statement. Therefore, the petitioners submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (A
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of litigants to establish their cases by amending the written statement should not be taken away by the court except in cases of del....
Amendment of written statements post-trial commencement is not permissible if it contradicts prior admissions regarding landlord-tenant relationships.
Categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment.
Point of Law : Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend ....
Amendments to written statements must not cause severe prejudice to the opposing party, especially when sought after a party's death.
Ownership issues cannot be determined in eviction suits, and certified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence.
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
