Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
MISHRI SINGH - Appellant
Versus
IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 38213 Of 1997
Decided On : 12/05/2002
Deo Raj
The main legal point established is that courts should adopt a liberal approach to amendments and ensure that justice is not hampered by technicalities.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Suit - Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. - B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai and Anr. - JT 1999 (10) SC 61
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondent, seeking an amendment to the plaint. The lower courts rejected the amendment application, leading to a revision petition before the District Judge, which was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendment was necessary to resolve the real controversy between the parties and did not require any additional evidence. It held that the amendment would not alter the nature of the suit or cause prejudice to the other party.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be allowed to amend the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the case of B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai and Anr., which emphasized a liberal approach to amendments and held that technicalities of law should not hamper the administration of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner to make necessary amendments in the plaint and quashed the previous orders. It directed the trial court to proceed with the suit expeditiously.
( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
( 2 ) IN this petition the judgment and order dated 3. 10. 1997 passed by the IIIrd Additional District judge, Bijnor, in Civil Revision No. 4 of 1997, dismissing the revision of the petitioner, by which the order and judgment dated 13. 12. 1996 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior division) Bijnor, dismissing the amendment application of the petitioner was upheld, has been challenged.
( 3 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are that a Civil Suit No. 308 of 1988 was filed against the respondent No. 3 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bijnor and the same was transferred to the Court of respondent No. 2. In the written statement (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) filed by respondent No. 2, the defendant in the suit, denied the existence of passage in dispute stating that the petitioner had another approach to his Haveli as per Schedule Ka to the suit from a passage existing towards east, adjacent to the Haveli of Genda and Khawani. The petitioner along with the plaint had moved an application for an ad interim injunction and had also applied for issue of a Commission for preparation of the site plan showing the Haveli along with the land appurtenant to the house and sahan. The application of the petitioner was allowed and Commission was issued in the name of Court Amin, who visited the site on 5. 8. 1988 and submitted his report dated 27. 8. 1988. The report of the Civil Court Amin was not clear and as such an objection was filed by the petitioner on 30. 7. 1990. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following three issues :
" (1) Whether there is any passage of Haveli of plaintiff towards north as alleged in the plaint? (2) Whether the rainy water and water of daily use of the plaintiffs Haveli passes towards north as alleged in the plaint? (3) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?"
( 4 ) IN the meantime an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17. C. P. C. on 16. 9. 1996. The respondent No. 3 filed an objection dated 9. 12. 1996 to the amendment. The amendment application was rejected vide order and judgment dated 13. 12. 1996 by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bijnor. Aggrieved by the order and judgment dated 13. 12. 1996, the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, Bijnor, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 4 of 1997. The revision was also dismissed by the order and judgment dated 3. 10. 1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
( 5 ) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that while rejecting the application for amendment the courts below failed to consider that the amendment was necessary for determination of all controversies between the parties and further that no additional evidence was required in the case. He submits that from a perusal of Annexure-7 to the writ petition, it is apparent on the face of record that the order of respondent No. 2 is not in accordance with law. It is further contended that the revision has been dismissed without appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and apart from it the revisional court has failed to consider the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C.
( 6 ) AT the time of admission this Court passed the following order on 25. 11. 1997 :
"issue notice. Until further orders, further proceedings in Original Suit No. 308 of 1988 pending in the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bijnor, shall remain stayed. "
The proceedings of the courts below are in abeyance for the last almost five year. The power to allow amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the suit in the interest of justice. It is settled legal position that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right under any circumstance, but, it is equally settled principle of law that a Court, while deciding th
