Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Sundru Devi & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Shanti Devi & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 464 of 2017
Decided On : 08-05-2018
Amendment - Land Dispute - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The court discussed the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution and the limitations on its exercise. It emphasized that the power of superintendence should be sparingly used and only in cases of grave injustice or violation of law. The court also highlighted the need for due diligence in seeking amendments to pleadings and the consequences of false claims and defenses in litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ancestral land and sought a permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants sought to amend their written statement to assert a different legal Will, which was rejected by the trial court. The defendants then filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants' amendment to the written statement was introduced surreptitiously and constituted a false claim and defense, leading to a serious problem with the litigation. It emphasized that false claims and defenses are a serious issue in real estate litigation and observed that the defendants had abused the process of the court.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the defendants' application for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The court also addressed the abuse of process of the court by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power of superintendence under Article 227 should be sparingly used and only in cases of grave injustice or violation of law. It emphasized the need for due diligence in seeking amendments to pleadings and highlighted the consequences of false claims and defenses in litigation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution as an abuse of the process of the court and ordered the defendants to pay Rs. 30,000 as costs to the plaintiff.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized the importance of exercising the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or legal violations. It is not intended for correcting mere errors (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The scope of Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate; interference is limited to situations where there is a manifest and apparent error that causes grave injustice or a gross failure of justice (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the strict conditions under which amendments to pleadings are permitted, especially after the commencement of trial. Such amendments require proof of due diligence and should not cause prejudice to the opposing party (!) (!) (!) .
The case involved an attempt by defendants to amend their written statement to support a different Will, which was initially rejected. The defendants' attempt to change their plea was found to be surreptitious and based on false claims, constituting an abuse of court process (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
False claims and defenses are considered serious problems in real estate litigation, often leading to prolonged disputes and misuse of judicial resources. Courts are urged to discourage such practices through costs and strict procedural adherence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court observed that frivolous and dishonest litigation, especially involving false pleadings and misrepresentation, undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Such conduct should be deterred by imposing costs and penalties (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The abuse of court process, including re-litigation and filing frivolous pleas, constitutes grounds for intervention. Courts have the authority to stop such proceedings to prevent wastage of judicial time and resources (!) (!) (!) .
The court reiterated that the primary role of judicial review under Article 227 is to ensure that subordinate courts operate within their jurisdiction and do not commit errors that result in grave injustice. It should not be used to correct every error of law or fact (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The case underscores the importance of honesty and transparency in litigation. Parties supporting false claims or engaging in dishonest tactics should be penalized to uphold the integrity of legal proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court ordered the defendants to pay costs for abusing the judicial process, emphasizing that such conduct wastes court resources and delays justice (!) .
These points encapsulate the principles and findings of the judgment regarding the proper exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the importance of due diligence in amendments, and the need to deter false claims and abuse of court procedures.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Defendants No. 1 and 2 are the petitioners, who aggrieved by the rejection of their application for amendment of the written statement, have filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Court No.II, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit land i.e. land comprised in Khasra nos. 180, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 93, 194, 195, 196, 239, 240, 241, 424, 440, measuring 38-14-15 bighas situated at mauja Khill / 159, Nihri, Mandi, H.P. is ancestral and coparcenary amongst plaintiff and deceased father of present respondents No. 1 and 2 / defendants No. 1 and 2, therefore, the sale deed dated 17.07.2006 executed by Paras Ram was declared null and void. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was sought restraining interference from the present defendants.
3. In the year 2010, the plaintiff/respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint to the effect that she had come to know about one Will dated 26.02.2005 executed by Paras Ram in favour defendant/petitioner No. 1, therefore, the same be declared as null and void. This amendment was duly allowed by the learned trial Court, however, in the year 2014 another amendment was sought in the plaint whereby the plaintiff alleged that she had come to know about one more Will No. 28, dated 04.06.2003 executed by late Shri Paras Ram in favour of Sundru Devi i.e. defendant No. 1, Kuldeep Chand defendant No. 2, on the basis of which mutation had been attested in their favour in connivance with the revenue officials and the Will be declared as null and void.
4. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, whereby they intended to amend para 6(a) of the written statement to the effect that it was Will No. 28, dated 04.06.2003 that was the legal Will of deceased Paras Ram and not the Will No. 160, dated 26.02.2005, which now stands rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 08.09.2017, constraining the petitioners/defendants to file the instant petition.
5. It is vehemently argued by Shri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that it was only on account of sheer inadvertence that it was pleaded that Will No. 160, dated 26.02.2005 is legal Will of deceased Paras Ram and, in fact, the valid Will of Paras Ram was the Will No. 28, dated 04.06.2003 and once the inadvertence had been established then the learned trial Court should not have reject the application but should have allowed the amendment.
6. On the other hand, Shri Varun Rana, learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently contend that the petitioners, in fact, have supported the Will No. 160, dated 26.02.2005 and not the Will No. 28, dated 04.06.2003, and, therefore the order passed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
7. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and with circumspection that too in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.
8. In D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee , (1953) AIR(Supreme Court) 58, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under:
"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."
9. In Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and another , (1954) AIR(Supreme Court) 215, a Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has examined
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
