The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited mandate of Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC, requiring specific particulars in cases of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition filed in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution is to seek seeing aside of the order dated 17th April, 2018, for short impugned order, passed by the court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar, for short court below, dismissing an application filed before it by the defendant no. 1, petitioner herein, in terms of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, CPC, on the grounds taken therein.

BRIEF FACTS

2. A civil suit titled Reyaz Ahmad Bhat v. Ghulam Hassan Khanyari and anr., has been by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein, before the court below for declaration, ejectment, possession and mandatory injunction on 7th May, 2013, pleading inter alia therein that he has purchased land measuring 2 kanals and 4marlas bearing Khasra no. 2482/2150/393, Khewat No. 324, Khata No. 1118-Min situated at Gupt Ganga, Srinagar, along with super structure standing over it from the defendant no. 2/earlier respondent no. 2 herein, substituted by his wife after his demise, but the possession of the said property has not been delivered to him as the defendant no. 1, petitioner herein had remained in possession of the same as trustee, brother of the defendant no.2/respondent no. 2 who is refusing to deliver the possession to the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein. The respondent no. 1/plaintiffhad further, alongside the suit, an application for grant of ad-interim relief. The Court below, upon consideration of the matter, on motion hearing, had dispensed with the requirement of prior notice as envisaged by Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and granted the interim relief in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein to the effect that no third-party interest in respect of the suit property shall be created till the objections are by the non-applicants/petitioner and respondent no. 2 herein, and the same are considered.

3. It appears that the petitioner as also the respondent no. 2 herein has appeared before the court below and their written version. While the respondent no. 2/ defendant no. 2 in the suit, has admitted the sale of the suit property to the plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant no. 1 before the court below, has chosen to contest the same and has accordingly refuted the claim of the plaintiff/ respondent no. 1 herein in terms of the averments contained in the written statement by him before the court below.

4. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant no. 1, is stated to have an application under Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC on 13th June, 2017, seeking leave of the court to incorporate better particulars in the written statement by him earlier.

5. The respondent no. 1/plaintiffbefore the court below, contested the application by filing his objections, stating therein that the defendant no. 1/petitioner herein is trying to prolong the matter and deprive the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein of his property rights.

6. The Court below, on consideration of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, did not find merit in the application and accordingly dismissed the same, vide the impugned order, holding that if the application is allowed and the particulars/pleadings as are mentioned therein are incorporated in the written statement, the same will cause prejudice to both the defendants/respondents herein, as they would be required to reply the contents against the object of Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC. It has further been held by the court below that allowing the application would mean allowing an amendment of the pleadings of the written statement.

7. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order, the petitioner/defendant no. 1, has the petition in hand in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution seeking setting aside of the same inter alia on the grounds that the impugned order is bad in law as it converted a bilateral controversy into a triangular one; all controversies would have got settled had the application been allowed as it would have concretized the issues before the court