Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Dabriwala Steel and Engineering Company Limited and Others – Appellants
Versus
Saket Steel Ltd. – Respondent
Criminal Nos. 3065 and 3113 of 2014
Decided On : 09-03-2015
For the Appellants : Aanand Chhibbar, Harpriya Khaneka.
For the Respondent: Munish Jolly.
Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or cause injustice. Typographical errors in pleadings can be corrected using the inherent powers of the Court.
Headnote:
amendment - compliance with court order - Companies Act, 1956, Section 391-394 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 6 Rule 18 - inherent powers of the Court - typographical error
Fact of the Case:
The defendant-company was wound up, and a suit for specific performance was filed against it. The company was later revived, and the plaintiff sought execution of the decree. The defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement, which was allowed but later challenged by the plaintiff. The defendant then sought to correct the amended written statement due to a clerical error, but the application was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the defendant had complied with the court order by filing the amended written statement within the specified time. The Court also held that a typographical error in the amended written statement could be corrected using the inherent powers of the Court.
Issues: Compliance with court orders, application for amendment, dismissal of application due to typographical error
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or cause injustice. It held that a typographical error in the amended written statement could be corrected using the inherent powers of the Court.
Final Decision: The first petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The second petition was also allowed, and the trial Court was directed to decide the application afresh. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CR No. 3065 of 2014 (here-in-after referred to as the "first petition") and CR No. 3113 of 2014 (here-in-after referred to as the "second petition") as both are interconnected. However, the facts are extracted from the first petition.
2. In brief, the defendant-company (petitioner no. 1 herein) was wound up vide order dated 24.02.1995 passed in C.P. No. 31 of 1995. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant-company on 14.07.1990 on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 14.07.1987 in respect of Plot No. 142, Sector 24, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 19.04.1996. In the meanwhile, the ex-management of the defendant company filed a Company Petition under Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (here-in-after referred to as the "Act") bearing C.P. No. 51 of 2006 on 23.03.2006 for revival of the company, making a proposal to pay to its creditors. The defendant-company was revived vide order dated 19.03.2009. In the said proceedings, the respondent-plaintiff moved an application bearing C.A. No. 482 of 2006 on 05.07.2006 for the purpose of seeking execution of the decree dated 19.04.1996. The application was disposed of on 19.03.2009, declining the prayer, holding that the decree was null and void as no prior permission under Section 446 of the Act was taken by the plaintiff to continue the said suit, after passing of the liquidation order on 24.02.1995. However, the plaintiff was granted monetary compensation but order of the Company Judge was challenged by the plaintiff by way of a Company Appeal No. 25 of 2009 before the Division Bench of this Court and the said appeal was disposed of with the following order:-
"The appeal is disposed of on the following agreed terms:-
(i) The winding up order of the respondent-company having been passed on 24.02.1995, all proceedings passed thereafter including a decree passed are set aside and the parties are relegated to the position as they were on 24.02.1995.
(ii) Both the parties are free to move appropriate legal proceedings by interim applications or otherwise before that court for consideration on merits as the winding up order no more stands.
(iii) The matter being relegated to the position of 1995 and the suit being quite old, we would expect the trial Court to take expeditious steps to dispose of the suit preferably within a maximum period of one year from the date of communication of the order.
(iv) The parties will appear in the suit titled as M/s. Saket Steels Ltd. Vs. M/s. Dabriwala Steel and Engineering Company Ltd. and Another pending at the time of decree before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 01.08.2013.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. In view of the appeal being disposed of, the pending applications are also disposed of.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties."
3. Thereafter, the defendant-company moved an application for amendment of the written statement in the suit thereby raising all necessary contentions and enclosing certain relevant documents. The amendment application was allowed by the trial Court on 13.12.2013 which was challenged by the plaintiff by way of CR No. 443 of 2014. The said revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 21.02.2014 with the following order:-
"Parties are agreed that this petition is disposed of on the following terms:-
(i) The following words in para 'xxvii' in sub para 'R' shall stand deleted.
"The plaintiff had signed the cancellation agreement and taken the said 20 cheques."
(ii) Para 17 of the amended written statement shall stand deleted from the record and para 17 of the original written statement would operate as pleadings.
(iii) The defendant would now file a fresh written statement after complying with the directions (i) and (ii) which will be treated as the written statement in defence
